BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

London Local Authorities Bill [Lords]  (By Order)

Consideration of Bill, as amended, opposed and deferred until Tuesday 29 November (Standing Order No. 20).

London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No. 2) Bill [Lords] (By Order)
	 — 
	Transport for London (Supplemental Toll Provisions) Bill [Lords] (By Order)

Second Readings opposed and deferred until Tuesday 29 November (Standing Order No. 20).

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

HEALTH

The Secretary of State was asked—

NHS Staffing

Graeme Morrice: What recent assessment he has made of front-line staffing levels in the NHS.

Simon Burns: We fully recognise how important front-line staff are to the provision of high-quality care. Local organisations are best placed to plan the work force who are required to deliver safe and high-quality services to patients.

Graeme Morrice: The Prime Minister promised to cut the deficit and not the national health service. Can the Minister tell us what has changed?

Simon Burns: Nothing has changed. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the NHS budget is a protected budget, and during the lifetime of the present Parliament it will receive real-terms increases. What the hon. Gentleman may not know is that the number of full-time equivalent clinical staff working in the NHS today is higher than it was in May 2010 and September 2009.

James Gray: Over the weekend, the Minister will have seen a number of reports in the press that tens of thousands of NHS jobs were to go. Is he aware of any evidence that that is the case, or is it pure trade union scaremongering?

Simon Burns: A deeply flawed survey is right in one respect: under the current Government, 14,000 administrative and managerial posts have gone from the health service, releasing money for front-line services.

Jamie Reed: The reality is, of course, that the report from the Royal College of Nursing revealed that thousands of front-line nursing posts are being cut, and that last night a leaked report on commissioning revealed further bad news for front-line staff: that the Government plan to privatise large swathes of the NHS, making GPs “bit-part players”. Does it remain Government policy to promote, in the words of the report,
	“a strong and vibrant market”
	in the NHS, and, in the words of the Prime Minister, to
	“drive the NHS to be a fantastic business”?

Simon Burns: The report that was published at the weekend is deeply flawed. It is outrageous for an organisation to seek to scare people for the sake of cheap publicity. That report is as flawed as the report that was published a year ago. Far from there being the 50,000 cuts to which it referred, since May 2010 the number of doctors has risen by 3,500, the number of consultants by 1,600, the number of registrars by 2,100 and the number of qualified radiography staff by 549. Moreover, the number of managers and administration officers has fallen by 14,000 to release money for improved health care.

Philip Hollobone: Front-line staffing levels come under particular pressure in the winter months because of the incidence of winter flu. Does my right hon. Friend welcome the news that at Kettering general hospital, almost 60% of front-line staff have now been inoculated against flu? That compares very well with last year’s national average of 35%.

Simon Burns: I join my hon. Friend in congratulating staff at Kettering general hospital on their responsible attitude, and urge other NHS staff throughout the country to follow their example. I am heartened to note that, as a result of the planning and activity that has taken place in the NHS, more staff are having flu jabs than did so last year.

Marmot Review

Nick Smith: What plans he has to implement the recommendations of the strategic review of health inequalities by Professor Marmot.

Anne Milton: The public health White Paper “Healthy lives, healthy people” gave details of our response to the Marmot review, and addressed the social determinants of health in people’s lives. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has read it. Yesterday we launched the University college London institute of health equity with Professor Sir Michael Marmot as its director, supported by the Department. The institute will help to promote the findings of the review across the NHS, public health and local government, and will ensure that health inequalities remain a priority.

Nick Smith: Parts of my constituency are more than 1,200 feet above sea level. We know about the impact of cold homes and fuel poverty on health. According to the latest figures, cold has caused 25,000 excess deaths in England and Wales. What discussions has the Minister had with the Chancellor about the need to invest in making our homes warmer to reduce the number of such deaths?

Anne Milton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. He will be aware of the 27,500 excess winter deaths that occur across the country, which is an increase of 17% on the deaths that occur at other times of the year. We have invested £30 million in total—£10 million to the Department of Energy and Climate Change and £20 million that local authorities can bid for—which will help to reduce those figures. It is encouraging that despite a very harsh winter last year the number of excess winter deaths has not risen.

Dan Rogerson: There is an access issue when considering the rural dimension of health inequalities. The dispensing doctors play a huge role in meeting need in rural areas, yet there are concerns about changes in regulation that have affected them. Will the Minister or one of her colleagues agree to meet me and representatives of that group to discuss their concerns?

Anne Milton: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has already agreed to meet some people. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that health inequalities are not just something faced by the urban poor and deprived; they are also an issue in rural areas. We must make sure that people have adequate access.

Diane Abbott: The Minister will be aware of the emphasis that Professor Michael Marmot places in his review of health inequalities—which I have read, so I can quote it—on
	“giving every child the best start in life”,
	on creating
	“fair employment and good work for all”
	and on reducing “inequalities in income”. Yet, under this Government, 90% of local councils will be forced to make cuts to Sure Start, unemployment continues to spiral—it is at a 17-year high—and, far from reducing income inequality, the House of Commons Library has calculated that an area such as mine in Hackney, which is one of the poorest in the country, will lose at least £9.6 million in cuts to housing benefit alone and a further £2.84 million through cuts to child tax credit. However desirable some of the organisational changes in public health are in principle, how can the Government possibly make progress on tackling health inequality in that context?

Anne Milton: How can the hon. Lady give Government Members lectures on health inequalities, given that those got worse under the previous Government? Life expectancy in Kensington and Chelsea is 85 whereas it is 74 in Blackpool, and that is after 13 years of a Labour Government. Family nurse partnerships have doubled and we are well on track to get the additional 4,200 health visitors. Through the public health Cabinet Sub-Committee we are determined to raise the standard of
	living for all, by providing new strategies on child poverty, social mobility, tax, pension retirement ages and so on. We are doing something, whereas the previous Government did nothing.

Children's Cardiac Services

Nicholas Dakin: What plans he has for the future of children's cardiac services in England; and if he will make a statement.

Simon Burns: The review of children’s congenital heart services is a clinically led, NHS review, independent of government. The Joint Committee of Primary Care Trusts—JCPCT—on behalf of local NHS commissioners, will decide the future pattern of children’s heart surgery services in England. It is expected to make that decision next year.

Nicholas Dakin: I thank the Minister for his reply. In view of the Royal Brompton’s judicial review verdict, does he agree that it is imperative that the breakdown of the assessments of all centres and all areas is fully disclosed, so that confidence in the Safe and Sustainable review can be restored?

Simon Burns: As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, it is imperative that Ministers continue to remain totally independent of this review, so that we cannot be accused of interfering. As he knows, the JCPCT has said that it plans to appeal against the decision, and we will have to await the outcome of that.

Julian Lewis: I fully appreciate the degree of independence that Ministers must preserve, but is there anything that this Minister can say on the methodology of the review to reassure the children’s heart unit at Southampton general hospital, which is rated the best in the country outside London, given that the review was, at one stage, excluding the entire population of the Isle of Wight in its calculations as to whether or not the unit should be in more than one of the four options being put forward?

Simon Burns: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, although I will disappoint him by saying that I will not be led from my chosen path and start to voice an opinion. I will say, as I did say during the earlier debate that he attended, that of course it is not set in stone that there will be only four options chosen, as and when—the number could be more. That is dependent on the consultations and the decision of the JCPCT, but he will appreciate that I cannot seek to influence those decisions.

NHS Hospital Debt

Sarah Newton: What steps he is taking to reduce the burden of debt for NHS hospitals.

Andrew Lansley: Although the overall financial position remains healthy, we will continue to focus on the small number of organisations in the NHS that are struggling to manage their finances. We are working to help all NHS trusts to be sustainable providers of high-quality health care and
	move forward to foundation trust status. That will include, where appropriate, agreeing solutions to resolve the regrettable legacy of debt from the previous Government.

Sarah Newton: Despite the fact that the staff of the Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust has made big strides forward in improving patient care while delivering efficiency savings, the trust is saddled with historic debt, largely as a result of Labour accountancy measures. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is grossly unfair and will he meet me to find ways of writing off the remaining Labour debt so that my constituents can stop worrying about the future of the only acute hospital in Cornwall?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and completely concur. I have the privilege of visiting Treliske hospital and seeing the good work that is being done there. In the course of the last financial year, the trust returned a surplus and it is projecting a surplus this year. As she knows, it has a legacy of debt that is being financed by a working capital loan. As with other NHS trusts, we are looking to ensure that through the process of becoming a foundation trust it will move from having legacy debts from the previous Government’s regime to being financially sustainable year-on-year while meeting the viability and balance sheet criteria for foundation trust status.

Dave Watts: When will the Secretary of State get a grip and sort out the problems of PFI long-term funding—[ Laughter. ]—given the fact that Ministers promised to do that six months ago and that we are no nearer a resolution than we were before?

Andrew Lansley: I do not know whether Hansard will record it, but the mirth with which that remark was met is an indication from Members that they know perfectly well, as the hon. Gentleman ought to know, that the previous Labour Government left a terrible legacy of unaffordable PFI projects that were poor value for money when they were introduced. He knows perfectly well the position his local trust has been put in. We are working through that, and out of the work that has been done to resolve that poor legacy, we identified 22 NHS trusts which said that their PFI was an impediment. We are working with all of them to resolve that.

Public Health Funding

Emma Reynolds: What plans he has to allocate resources to local authorities when they assume responsibility for public health.

Fabian Hamilton: What plans he has to allocate resources to local authorities when they assume responsibility for public health.

Grahame Morris: What steps he plans to take to ensure that the allocation of public health funding reduces health inequalities.

Anne Milton: For the first time, public health money will be ring-fenced and from April 2013 local authorities will receive that ring-fenced public health grant, targeted at areas with high population need and weighted for inequalities. In the preceding year—that is 2012-13—the shadow allocation will be published to allow local authorities to plan for the following year.

Emma Reynolds: As the Minister knows, public health problems are much more acute in areas of high deprivation. Wolverhampton primary care trust has been incredibly successful in reducing teenage pregnancies and increasing childhood nutrition. Will she reassure me in detail on exactly what weighting will be given to deprivation so that that good work in Wolverhampton can continue?

Anne Milton: We have commissioned advice from the independent Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation and recently completed a survey of current NHS spend on public health. As the hon. Lady says, allocation needs to be weighted for inequalities and we are particularly keen that the committee develops a formula that captures within-area deprivation, which has been an issue in the past. Otherwise, affluent areas with pockets of deprivation tend to be ignored. If we want to improve the health of the poorest fastest, we must consider the heath need and deprivation.

Fabian Hamilton: Will the Minister reassure my constituents that when the money is transferred to local authorities, the staff will also be transferred from the NHS to those local authorities? Will there be sufficient resource within them to keep employing some of the excellent staff who currently work in the NHS?

Anne Milton: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the excellent work that has been done despite the fact that public health budgets have not previously been ring-fenced. Indeed, what we have seen previously is PCTs raiding public health budgets for service provision, which is one reason why inequalities in health have got worse. It is extremely important that we transfer expertise, and employment law will ensure that all the transition is managed smoothly.

Grahame Morris: We are having problems getting reports published by the Department of Health. Will the Minister tell us about the public health outcomes framework by which we will measure progress in tackling and reducing health inequalities? What does the fact that the framework still has not been published say about the Government’s commitment to reducing health inequalities?

Anne Milton: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want us to rush this. It is extremely important that for the first time we will have a public health outcomes framework. There was no such framework under the previous Government, so it is important that we get it right. It will be an important signal to local authorities about what we expect them to achieve—with, as I have said, a focus on improving the health of the poorest fastest.

Stephen Dorrell: As we transfer public health responsibilities to local Government—something that has been very broadly welcomed—is it not important that in addition to a clear definition of
	the funds that are going to be transferred, subject to a ring fence, we also have a clear definition of the responsibilities that local authorities will be expected to discharge in the new world? When can we expect that definition to be put into the public arena?

Anne Milton: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Conditions will be attached to the ring-fenced money to determine how it can be spent, but any expenditure will need to refer to promoting or protecting public health. I hesitate to use the word “shortly”, which the previous Government used on many occasions, but it will be published along with the outcomes framework. It is important that we get it right.

Charlie Elphicke: Will the Minister join me in congratulating Kent county council and Dover district council on their enthusiasm for taking over public health responsibilities and on the fact that they are looking at how to expand the resources that are available by considering the co-commissioning of social services with local GPs? Finally, may I inject a note of caution about the new community health trusts?

Anne Milton: I am happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating Kent county council. As he rightly points out, these moves have been welcomed by many local authorities, many of which already do much to improve the health and well-being of their populations. It is extremely important that councils are eager to start, as I know they are, and eager to get that money and see the public health outcomes framework so that they can build on some of the good work they have already done.

Robert Halfon: Harlow has one of the highest levels of obesity in the east of England. Will my hon. Friend ensure that the resources that are directed to local authorities are properly used to solve such problems?

Anne Milton: Yes, this is not only about resources, as my hon. Friend rightly says. Some 60% of adults are overweight or obese, and those figures are even higher in some areas. It is extremely important not only that any money is followed by that public health outcomes framework, but that it is effective. This is not something we can simply chuck money at, as the previous Government did.

Care Standards

Nick de Bois: What steps he is taking to raise the standards of care provided by health care workers and care assistants.

Andrew Lansley: I have commissioned Skills for Health and Skills for Care in partnership with employers, unions, regulators, educators and others to develop a code of conduct and minimum training standards for health care support workers and adult social care workers in England. This will give employers and patients confidence in the employment and standards of staffing at all levels. I expect the final report and recommendations by September 2012.

Nick de Bois: The Secretary of State knows that I believe in less, not more, regulation, but given the increasing role and responsibilities of health care assistants, particularly with the elderly, does he agree that the time has come both to recognise their increased responsibilities and to provide safeguards at a national level by requiring them to be on a national register?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend will know that health care and social care support workers do responsible jobs and that the responsibility for them lies principally with their employers and the staff who supervise them. We made provision in the White Paper we published last December for a process of assured voluntary registration. What I announced and referred to a moment ago will give a code of conduct and standards that will form a basis for an assured voluntary registration scheme in future.

Andrew Gwynne: One key care standard is the time that people have to wait for their treatment. Labour got waiting times down to an historic low, and we warned the Secretary of State what would happen if he relaxed the 18-week standard. Figures show that the number of patients waiting longer than 18 weeks is up by 43% and, despite the U-turn that the Government have made on the use of targets, is not the problem that they have been so fixated on their top-down reorganisation that they lost control of waiting lists? Surely it is time for them to drop the Health and Social Care Bill and focus on the things that really matter to the people using and working in the NHS.

Andrew Lansley: I am sorry, but that was all completely synthetic anger on the hon. Gentleman’s part. The average time that patients have been waiting in the NHS for treatment continues to be between eight and nine weeks. It has been so ever since the last election. The operational standard under the previous Government and now for the 18-week waiting time is that at least 90% of patients who are admitted for treatment should be admitted and treated within 18 weeks, and 95% of outpatients. Both of those operational standards continue to be met. Last week I made it clear that whereas the previous Government abandoned people who went beyond 18 weeks—and there were 250,000 of them who went beyond 18 weeks—we will not abandon those forgotten patients. We will make sure that they, too, are brought into treatment as soon as possible.

Dental Services

Natascha Engel: What arrangements he has put in place to involve dental practitioners in the commissioning of dental services.

Paul Burstow: Responsibility for the commissioning of all dental services across primary, salaried and secondary care will sit with the NHS Commissioning Board. The vision for commissioning dental services sees dental local professional networks developing and delivering local service plans and quality improvement strategies across all dental services and providing clinical leadership and expertise at local level. This will enable dentists, working with commissioners and other local stakeholders, to ensure that all dental services are integrated and work together in the most efficient way.

Natascha Engel: I thank the Minister for that answer, but I still do not see why GPs are good enough to commission services locally, but dentists are not. Can he explain exactly how dentists are to be involved, in the same way as GPs are, in commissioning services locally?

Paul Burstow: I refer the hon. Lady to the answer that I just gave. The vision for commissioning dental services sees dental local professional networks developing and delivering local services and local quality improvement strategies. Beyond that, it involves local health and wellbeing boards working together closely, involving local clinicians through the networks that I referred to earlier. The answer is that local dental clinicians will be fully involved in the ways that I have just described.

Private Finance Initiative Payments

Marcus Jones: What steps his Department plans to take to assist hospitals with the cost of PFI payments.

David Evennett: What steps his Department plans to take to assist hospitals with the cost of PFI payments.

Andrew Lansley: A Treasury review identified savings opportunities of up to 5% on annual payments in NHS PFI schemes. The lessons learned from the PFI savings pilot will be applied to all schemes in the PFI pipeline. The previous Government left a £50 billion post-dated cheque to pay for their hospital building programme. Much of it was unaffordable and poor value for money. We are dealing with that unfortunate legacy, including the 22 NHS trusts that identified this as a constraint on their future sustainability.

Marcus Jones: I thank my right hon. Friend for his response. PFI schemes have undoubtedly undermined the financial stability of many local health economies, as is the case in Coventry and Warwickshire. Can my right hon. Friend assure my constituents that any solution to assist PFI schemes, such as at the University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust, will not be to the detriment of my constituents who use the George Eliot hospital in Nuneaton?

Andrew Lansley: Yes, I believe I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. Through the process of working with NHS trusts to see what is necessary for them to become foundation trusts—for example, we are working with University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust—it is clear that action taken locally with support can deliver viability and sustainability for the future. I hope the same will be true for the George Eliot hospital, but as a separate trust it will not be as a direct consequence of the steps that are taken at Walsgrave.

David Evennett: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s response to the original question. Poorly negotiated PFI deals for hospitals in the South London Healthcare NHS Trust are causing real financial problems and have led to the downgrading of Queen Mary’s hospital in my borough of Bexley. Does he share my concerns about this injustice, and will he ensure that my constituents get the first-class health care that they need and deserve and look again at this PFI situation?

Andrew Lansley: Yes, of course. My hon. Friend understands very well indeed how difficult are the circumstances of his trust, which includes two PFI hospitals, and Queen Mary’s at Sidcup has suffered from the consequences of those PFIs. I am looking forward to the proposals on the future provision of health services on the Queen Mary’s Sidcup site. South London Healthcare is clearly an extremely challenged trust and we inherited very substantial problems there. We are looking to resolve them with it, but it will need additional national support.

Claire Perry: In addition to struggling hospital trusts, many, many community hospitals throughout the country, such as Savernake hospital near Marlborough, are also labouring under the burden of an enormous PFI contract and having the indignity of vital local services hollowed out under that lot’s leadership on the Labour Benches. Will the Secretary of State please tell me what he will do to help those smaller hospitals with vital local services?

Andrew Lansley: As my hon. Friend knows from her conversations with the Minister of State, Department of Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), we are very sympathetic to her concerns. By devolving commissioning responsibilities to clinical commissioning groups, I expect the local clinical leadership, understanding fully the contribution that community hospitals can make, to be supportive of that in their commissioning intentions in her constituency and others.

Health and Wellbeing Boards

Julian Huppert: What plans he has to ensure balanced political and geographical representation on health and wellbeing boards.

Paul Burstow: The Health and Social Care Bill sets minimum membership for health and wellbeing boards. The boards will provide local system leadership, assessing need and setting the strategy for commissioning health, social care and public health. Ensuring that the board has the benefit of a broad range of opinion and geographical spread is a matter for local decision. However, the Department’s health and wellbeing board national learning network is developing and sharing good practice to inform those decisions.

Julian Huppert: Does my hon. Friend agree that the ability of a health and wellbeing board to represent democratically the interests of the people in its area would be boosted by having a reasonable number of councillors on it with both geographical representation across the area and political balance?

Paul Burstow: We are telling local authorities that they can have a majority of elected members on health and wellbeing boards if that is the appropriate way forward for their local community. My hon. Friend’s area, Cambridgeshire county council, recognises the importance of ensuring that there is a geographical spread and a full involvement of local opinion in those boards. There is a special event next January for stakeholders to get information about that, in which I hope my hon. Friend will take part.

Chris Evans: Is not there a danger that health and wellbeing boards will simply be a talking shop for bureaucrats?

Paul Burstow: No.

Winter Pressures (NHS)

Guy Opperman: What plans he has to ensure that the NHS is prepared for winter pressures.

Andrew Lansley: The NHS and social care systems are well prepared for winter. Our Winterwatch summary was first published last Thursday. It showed higher flu vaccination uptake, and I announced additional extracorporeal membrane oxygenation—ECMO—capacity, which will be in place by December. There is always more pressure on the NHS during winter. This year will be no different, but the preparations are in place.

Guy Opperman: Given the director of immunisation’s recent report on the take-up by medical staff of the flu jab and the local efforts of Dr Alastair Blair, the chair of the Northumberland clinical commissioning group, will the Minister expand on the need for patient protection in the form of flu jabs in hospitals and surgeries around the country?

Andrew Lansley: I would like to take this opportunity not least to commend the work that the chief medical officer has done this year in encouraging health care workers to have their seasonal flu jab. The latest figures are that 29% have done so, compared with 11% at the same point last year. We heard earlier from my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) how well Kettering has done, and there are hospitals that are demonstrating that a higher level is entirely achievable. I urge staff across the NHS to have their flu vaccination. It is the ethical thing to do, not least to provide protection to their patients.

John Healey: One of the things that makes the problem of winter pressures much greater is the NHS coping with the biggest reorganisation ever. The public have a right to know the risks that the Government’s policies are placing on our NHS. The Information Commissioner agrees and has judged that the Secretary of State must now release the risk assessments and register for his NHS reorganisation. Will he now obey the law and end his 12-month cover-up?

Andrew Lansley: I have been very clear and published all the cost-benefit and risk information relating to the modernisation of the NHS, and the impact assessment was published when the legislation was presented to the House of Lords.

David Morris: The Care Quality Commission and Monitor are looking into the affairs of the University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust. Will my right hon. Friend assure my constituents that whatever the findings, the Government will act upon them quickly?

Andrew Lansley: I entirely understand my hon. Friend’s point. I of course will not prejudice whatever might be said in relation to that, but I will look at the report very carefully when it is presented.

Liz Kendall: Social care is vital for reducing winter pressures on the NHS by helping to keep older people out of hospital, but the Government are cutting funding for older people’s social care by £1.3 billion. Delayed discharges from hospitals are already up 11% from this time last year. The Minister responsible for care said in Westminster Hall on 10 November:
	“cuts to front-line adult social care services are really beginning to bite.”—[Official Report, 10 November 2011; Vol. 535, c. 178WH.]
	Does the Secretary of State agree?

Andrew Lansley: I have to say to the hon. Lady that it was this Government who, through the spending review, gave priority to social care. More than £7 billion was added to the social care budget as a consequence of the steps taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and by the NHS. This year the NHS is providing an additional £648 million specifically to support adult social care. In addition, I have announced our Warm Homes Healthy People funding for this winter, which will provide additional support for those most urgently in need.

Accident and Emergency Provision

John Mann: How many accident and emergency departments have reduced their on-site service provision in the last 12 months.

Simon Burns: This information is not collected centrally. It is for NHS commissioners to secure high-quality services for their communities. Where a substantial service change is proposed, decisions should be made against the Secretary of State’s four tests, including support from GP commissioners and clear evidence of patient and public engagement.

John Mann: Broadening the definition of major trauma would have disastrous consequences for many A and E departments, not least those in Bassetlaw and the surrounding towns in south Yorkshire and the north midlands. Can the Minister give an absolute guarantee that the definition of major trauma is not being broadened, so that those hospitals and their A and E departments are not put in jeopardy?

Simon Burns: The assurance I can give the hon. Gentleman is that the siting of A and E departments will be a matter of clinical judgment. I can also assure him that £900,000 will be invested in the A and E department at Bassetlaw hospital for improvements, including the creation of a three-bay resuscitation room, a larger waiting area for patients and other improvements to enhance the quality of care for his constituents.

Amber Rudd: At a recent surprise visit to my local A and E department, at the Conquest hospital, I was delighted to find a very high quality of care. Will the Minister reassure me that any local reconfiguration puts high-quality patient care at the centre of delivery?

Simon Burns: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I am glad that she had such a positive experience visiting her local A and E. I can categorically tell her that reconfigurations must be carried out in accordance with the Secretary of State’s four tests and that clinical safety and quality of care are paramount.

Social Care

Julie Hilling: What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the future costs of long-term social care.

Paul Burstow: The Government are committed to publishing a White Paper and a progress report, responding to both the Law Commission and the Dilnot commission recommendations. As part of ongoing work, there have been numerous discussions throughout the Government, including with Her Majesty’s Treasury.

Julie Hilling: At least 5,000 families a month are having to make decisions about the long-term care of loved ones. Since the election, thousands have had to sell their homes and spend every penny on care. How many more people—and for how much longer—will have to be terrified about their future?

Paul Burstow: If the hon. Lady had prefaced her question with an apology for failing to sort out the problem for 13 years, I might have taken it more seriously. This Government moved urgently to establish the commission chaired by Andrew Dilnot, we are now actively working through his proposals, and we will come forward with legislation and a White Paper in due course.

Margot James: Does my hon. Friend agree that the integration of health and social care should be leveraged by commissioners to encourage savings in the acute sector, to contribute to funding much-needed improvements in long-term social care?

Paul Burstow: There is no doubt that more integration between health and social care is a way of improving the quality of services delivered to the public, and of releasing resources that can then be reinvested in improving services. We know, for example, that the use of reablement services can reduce costs and improve the quality of life outcomes for the people who receive them.

Training (Nurses and Doctors)

Barry Sheerman: What steps he is taking to improve the training of nurses and doctors.

Andrew Lansley: Our reforms aim for excellence in education and training and for a better patient experience by ensuring greater accountability for employers in planning and developing their work force while being professionally informed and underpinned by strong academic links. I have always been clear that I want to see greater professional ownership of the standards of education and training, and greater employer engagement in getting work force planning right. We will publish more details on that when the NHS Future Forum reports shortly.

Barry Sheerman: Does the Secretary of State share the concerns that I have picked up in my constituency? First, although we have very good nurses in Huddersfield, national stories about a lack of care for elderly people make all of us worried about the quality of training of some nurses in some institutions. Secondly, will he remember that, with his demolition of the health service, we are moving to a system in which no management training is given to any doctor or GP? Is that not a recipe for chaos?

Andrew Lansley: On the latter point, I have been talking to those in training, and part of their education increasingly includes leadership. That is what we are looking for—clinical leadership, not to turn clinicians into managers. They will work with managers, but they will provide leadership.
	On nursing training, the Care Quality Commission’s recent inspection reports, in particular, illustrated the sheer variability of care—sometimes even between wards in the same hospital. On that basis, we should not in any sense damn the quality of nurse training; we need to focus on the quality of nurse leadership—ward by ward, and hospital by hospital.

Peter Bone: The new Government’s strategy on human trafficking requires the NHS to ensure that victims of human trafficking are recognised in hospitals and reported. One way of doing that is to improve training for nurses. I have just returned from Moldova, where nurses have a course on human trafficking as part of their training, so that they can recognise victims and help them. Is that something that we could incorporate here?

Andrew Lansley: I am interested to hear my hon. Friend’s experience. I certainly look forward to hearing more from him about it, and to taking it on board in considering how we respond to those obviously tragic victims.

Strategic Risk Register

Kerry McCarthy: What assessment he has made of the effects of publishing his Department’s strategic risk register on his restructuring of the NHS.

Simon Burns: Publishing the Department’s risk register would have implications beyond the Department of Health, and we are taking the time granted to us by the Information Commissioner before deciding whether to appeal against his decision requiring its release.

Kerry McCarthy: I think I thank the Minister for that response, which at least gives some indication of where the Government are coming from. But, given the widespread concern among the public about the risks posed by the Health and Social Care Bill, and given that the Information Commission has ruled that the register should be published, does the Minister not think that it should be published before Report stage in the House of Lords, so that at the very least the findings can be used to inform the amendments being tabled to rescue the Bill even at this late stage?

Simon Burns: No, I do not think that the register should be published before then, in so far as we are still considering whether or how to move forward within the time scale that the Information Commissioner has given us—[ Interruption. ] Before the hon. Lady gets too pious, I must tell her—I do not say “remind her”, because in the previous Government she will have been too busy tweeting, as the tweeting tsar, to know what the Department of Health was doing—that in September 2009 the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) similarly blocked release of the Department of Health’s strategic risk register, using the non-disclosure provisions under section 36 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and that his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), did the same on two occasions in 2008.

Mr Speaker: Order. It seems that the subject matter for an Adjournment debate is being provided.

Duncan Hames: Two, or even three, wrongs do not make a right. Regarding an exemplary risk register, does the Minister consider that the mitigation plans for any risks identified there may serve to reassure Members of the other House, if it were to be published in advance of the conclusion of the Committee stage there?

Simon Burns: If the hon. Gentleman had read it, he would know that the important aspect—[ Interruption. ] He says that he cannot read it, but if he listens for a minute, he will hear that the important parts that are relevant to the Health and Social Care Bill were published in January and September this year in the impact assessment for the Bill.

Andy Burnham: May I first commend the Health Secretary on his ingenious new approach to cutting delayed discharges? If his appearance on continuous loop on hospital TV does not cut length of stay, I do not know what will. One area where he has been noticeably less forthcoming is on the recent ruling by the Information Commissioner, which could not be clearer: Parliament and the public have the right to know what extra risks and threats his Department expects the NHS to face as a result of this top-down reorganisation. Let us give him one more chance to give us a clear commitment: will he live up to the Prime Minister’s words on transparency and openness and publish the report in full without delay?

Simon Burns: The right hon. Gentleman may not have been listening to the response I gave to his hon. Friend, which was that the relevant aspects of the risk assessment have been incorporated into the impact assessments published in January and September. [ Interruption. ] Before he, too, gets too pious, may I remind him that it was he himself who, in September 2009, blocked the publication of his Department’s risk assessment?

Andy Burnham: I would happily have paid £5 to opt out of that particular pre-scripted loop message. Unlike the Minister and his fellow Front Benchers, I was not subject to a ruling from the Information Commissioner. People watching this today will be left wondering what he and the Secretary of State are so desperate to hide. He can hide the report, but he cannot hide the growing warning signs we are seeing in our NHS: waiting lists
	up, delayed discharges up, and nurses made redundant. The truth is that he has placed the NHS in the danger zone, with a destabilising and demoralising reorganisation when it most needed stability. He says he wants feedback, so why does he not listen to patients and staff, put the NHS first and drop his dangerous Bill?

Simon Burns: It is marvellous how the right hon. Gentleman repeats his soundbite every time he discusses the NHS. I have to tell him that he is wrong. He knows that the NHS has to evolve. He knows that we have to improve and enhance patient care. I think he does himself a disservice by simply joining the ranks of organisations such as 38 Degrees, which is frightening people and getting them, almost zombie-like, to send in e-mails.

Topical Questions

Helen Jones: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Andrew Lansley: My responsibility is to lead the NHS in delivering improved health outcomes in England, to lead a public health service that improves the health of the nation and reduces health inequalities, and to lead the reform of adult social care, which supports and protects vulnerable people.

Helen Jones: Is the Secretary of State aware that plans to remove vascular services from Warrington hospital will threaten services such as diabetes care, renal cancer care and the co-operation on stroke that has been built up with Whiston hospital? What will he do to protect those services, or is this part of the plan he discussed in February with NHS North West to reduce the number of acute beds and increase competition?

Andrew Lansley: I am glad that on Monday the hon. Lady will have an opportunity for an Adjournment debate where this subject can be—

Helen Jones: Answer the question!

Andrew Lansley: I will of course answer the question. The answer is that this is entirely driven by clinical issues in a local context. I can tell the hon. Lady that it is very much about trying to improve vascular services, and the judgments being made are local and clinical.

Iain Stewart: What leadership role do the Government expect the new health and wellbeing boards to play in determining significant NHS service changes in each local area?

Andrew Lansley: The health and wellbeing boards will have a role not only in leading improvements in public health and social care but, through the joint strategic needs assessment and the strategy derived from that, in establishing how services should respond to the needs of the local population. The clinical commissioning group should respond directly to that, and any specific service configuration changes should form part of the commissioning plan. In addition, the local authority, through its scrutiny role, will have a continuing ability to refer those plans for review.

Mary Glindon: Will the Secretary of State agree to meet me, and families living with muscle disease, to discuss the urgent problem of primary care trusts refusing to fund vital cough assist machines, which help to prevent serious and very costly winter respiratory infections for those who are unable to use their lung muscles to cough?

Andrew Lansley: Of course I, or one of my colleagues, will be glad to meet the hon. Lady to discuss that. I might also say that it was important to have announced, as I did last week, the expansion of ECMO—extracorporeal membrane oxygenation—facilities across England. Those facilities present a life-saving opportunity for people with the severest respiratory disease.

Sajid Javid: My apologies, Mr Speaker, for having missed my question on the Order Paper earlier. Every five minutes someone in the UK suffers from a stroke, and over 1 million people are living with the effects of stroke. That is why I welcome the establishment of the first “life after stroke” centre—a £2 million investment in my constituency. Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming this excellent initiative by the Stroke Association?

Andrew Lansley: Yes, of course I will join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to all the work that I know personally that the Stroke Association has done over a number of years in raising public awareness of the importance of developing stroke services, which has had an impact inside the NHS. We have improving figures in terms of reducing stroke mortality, and I now want to go further in ensuring that we enable people not only to survive stroke but to recover as many as possible of their abilities afterwards.

Paul Goggins: Will the Minister with responsibility for public health update the House on her plans to review the criteria whereby people with haemophilia who have been infected with hepatitis C can claim stage 2 payments from the Skipton fund? Specifically, will she tell us how she intends to involve patients and carers in that review?

Anne Milton: I know that the right hon. Gentleman has campaigned hard on this issue. I can assure him that I recently met a group of MPs, and constituents of theirs who are suffering from hepatitis. As he knows, there is a wide spectrum of illness associated with chronic hepatitis C infection. We are aware that people could be suffering financial hardship as a result, and I would urge them to apply to the Caxton Foundation. The Department’s expert advisory group on hepatitis C will continue to keep the evidence under review.

Henry Smith: In a number of surgeries in my constituency, and in many across the country, physicians’ assistants play a very important role in enhancing capacity. Can my hon. Friend say whether there are any plans in the Department of Health to allow physicians’ assistants to be able to prescribe medication?

Anne Milton: The medicines legislation governs the range of health professionals who can prescribe. The Government’s policy is that only registered and regulated health professionals should be able to train for that; physicians’ assistants are neither.

Nicholas Dakin: After speculation about the future of the Department of Health’s free nursery milk scheme, will the Secretary of State assure families and nurseries that he recognises the value of free nursery milk in preparing young people for a good future and well-being in life?

Anne Milton: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we do recognise the value of nursery milk. The only shocking thing is that the previous Government presided over a scheme whereby nursery milk is now costing double the retail price, and we urgently need to look at that. We are committed to continuing the scheme, but shocked at what has gone on before.

Stuart Andrew: An independent study of the patient assumptions of the Safe and Sustainable review has confirmed what many of us already knew: that, contrary to the review’s claims, most families in Yorkshire and the Humber will travel not to Newcastle but to Leicester or Liverpool. Will my right hon. Friend seek confirmation from the Safe and Sustainable review body that it will revise its options in the light of that new evidence?

Simon Burns: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I have heard the important point that he has made. No doubt the Joint Committee of Primary Care Trusts will also hear the point that he has made to me. I am sure that he understands that it would be totally inappropriate for me to give any view that might compromise the independence of Ministers on this independent review.

Luciana Berger: What is the Secretary of State’s estimation of the number of NHS doctors and nurses who, in an astoundingly demoralising way, are having their pay grades downgraded?

Andrew Lansley: I do not have a figure for that. If the hon. Lady and others want to discuss it, I would be glad to see evidence of it—and so should NHS employers, because as part of the implementation of “Agenda for Change”, staff should be banded in grades according to independent criteria.

David Amess: Last year in Westminster Hall, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Anne Milton) rightly praised the work of midwives and the Royal College of Midwives. Does she share my concern that locally, there could be a downgrading of community midwives, leading to an overall reduction in the number of midwives in our area?

Anne Milton: I thank my hon. Friend, and I will take this opportunity to praise again the work of midwives and the Royal College of Midwives. It was a pleasure to be at its conference only last week. I would point out that there are now more than 20,000 full-time equivalent midwives. That is an increase of 2.4% on last year. We
	have record numbers of midwives in training, with 2,493 this year and an increase on that next year. What matters is that we get the right services for women who are pregnant, ensure that they can exercise the choices that they need, and get the right skills mix.

Jim Shannon: Figures today reveal that older women are being discriminated against in breast cancer treatment, with some 20% of women over 65 receiving chemotherapy compared with some 70% of women under 50. Will the Minister assure the House that those who are over 65 will receive equitable treatment, and that this discrimination will stop?

Paul Burstow: I am grateful for that question, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are determined to root out ageism wherever it might be within the NHS. That is why we have made it clear that there will be no exemptions from age discrimination legislation—and that will have to be taken into account by clinicians when they make decisions.

Greg Mulholland: The recent judicial review concerning the unit at the Royal Brompton hospital said that the Safe and Sustainable consultation was unlawful and the review should be quashed. Considering the concern about this matter and the flaws in the review, is it not time for the Minister to indicate when the Government might intervene? Otherwise, there could be further threats of judicial review.

Simon Burns: The straightforward answer is no, because the Joint Committee of Primary Care Trusts has said that it intends to appeal. This is an independent review. It would be inappropriate for me or any other Minister to interfere in such a review, because we could be accused of compromising its independence.

Alex Cunningham: The Prime Minister promised a bare-knuckle fight to save A and E and maternity units at King George hospital, Chase Farm hospital and other hospitals that the Secretary of State now plans to close. When will that fight take place, and where can hon. Members purchase tickets for ringside seats?

Simon Burns: I heard what the hon. Gentleman said, and I was disappointed that we did not reach his question on the Order Paper earlier, because he has been extremely concerned about the A and E in his own area in Hartlepool. That decision was taken on safety grounds. Emergency care has been provided at the One Life centre. The decision was taken with the support of the local overview and scrutiny committee, which he will appreciate has democratic accountability. That was the right decision. Where there are clinical reasons for taking such decisions, they should be taken.

David Tredinnick: Has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or any of his ministerial colleagues been able to visit the People’s Republic of China to consider traditional Chinese medicine?

Anne Milton: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He must be psychic, because I recently visited China, and it was fascinating to meet Ministers there. He will
	also be very pleased to hear, as I am sure the whole House will, that I visited a hospital and community centre that combines western medicine and traditional Chinese medicine.

Phil Wilson: The coalition agreement states that public sector employees, including health care employees, will be given a new right to set up employee-led co-operatives to run services. Can the Minister detail how many NHS co-operatives have been established and how many employees are involved in them?

Andrew Lansley: I will gladly write to the hon. Gentleman if my recollection is wrong, but I think that something in the order of 25,000 staff have been transferred into social enterprises since the election. That represents something like £900 million-worth of NHS activity across England.

Tracey Crouch: Pension reform is important to those of my constituents who work in the public sector—and, indeed, to the taxpayers who do not. With that in mind, does the Secretary of State agree that the heath service unions should work constructively with the Government on public sector pension reform rather than go on strike next week, potentially putting patients’ lives at risk?

Andrew Lansley: Yes, I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is very important to me that NHS staff, and other public servants, are valued in their remuneration, including the pensions that they receive. That is precisely why I have myself engaged in discussion with the NHS trade unions and staff side and continue to be engaged directly in negotiations with them about that, on the basis of the conditional offer that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury announced to the House recently, which I think would be fair to NHS staff and to taxpayers. On that basis, I think it is completely irresponsible and unacceptable for some unions in the NHS—not the Royal College of Nursing or the British Medical Association—to intend to go on strike next week.

Mr Speaker: We are immensely grateful to the Secretary of State. He is testing the knee muscles of colleagues very considerably, and we are grateful to him for that, I am sure.

Lilian Greenwood: Today’s report by Macmillan Cancer Support showed that over the past 40 years there has been virtually no improvement in life expectancy for those diagnosed with a brain tumour. Brain Tumour UK and experts such as my city’s own Professor David Walker are calling for action to improve diagnosis and treatment. What action is the Department taking to address their concerns?

Paul Burstow: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. Macmillan has done a very good job by highlighting the need to focus on survival rates with regard not only to brain cancers but to lung cancers. Through our outcomes strategy, we are focusing on earlier diagnosis and ensuring that the care pathway is faster and delivers the appropriate treatments at the right time.

Tessa Munt: There are 3,000 cases each year of early stage inoperable lung cancer, but as yet no national stereotactic body radiotherapy treatment for lung cancer. What number of patients does the Secretary of State consider to be the appropriate threshold at which he will instruct his Department to establish a national lung cancer tariff?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. I do not think I am in a position to say what figure is appropriate, but the national clinical director for cancer has already indicated to the NHS that he wishes us to develop a national tariff for stereotactic radiotherapy. A quarter of centres across the country already provide it, and our intention is to ensure that that is supported by a national tariff as soon as possible.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Regrettably, there are still many thousands of attacks by dangerous dogs
	every year that end up with people in A and E, and occasional fatalities. Has the Secretary of State carried out any assessment of the cost to the NHS of treatment for attacks by dangerous dogs? If not, may I ask him to instruct his officials to do so?

Andrew Lansley: I do not have those figures to hand, but I will gladly see whether we have them available, and I will write to the hon. Gentleman.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. I apologise for disappointing colleagues, but Health questions are invariably box office, and usually a sell-out at that. We must now move on.

Coastguard Modernisation

Michael Penning: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the Government’s final decisions about coastguard modernisation in the light of responses received to the second round of consultation, which ended on 6 October 2011.
	I should first like to remind the House that the plans for coastguard modernisation announced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond) in his statement on 14 July, following the first round of consultation, are not about altering the arrangements for front-line rescue services around our coasts. Rescue activities will continue to be carried out as they are today by the 3,500 community volunteers in the Coastguard Rescue Service; the lifeboats operated by the Royal National Lifeboat Institution; independent lifeboats operated by volunteer groups; and our search and rescue helicopters. The bravery and commitment shown by those providing front-line services have served this country well and will continue to do so.
	The plans we have announced specifically include an increase in the number of regular coastguard officers who provide operational leadership to support the 3,500 volunteers in the Coastguard Rescue Service, whom I mentioned. These plans therefore reflect the importance we attach to continuing the delivery of a first-class local rescue service directly serving citizens and recreational mariners.
	The decision announced on 14 July, and the further details I am announcing today, are about modernising the coastguard co-ordination function only. Modernisation is needed to address the limited resilience of current rescue co-ordination arrangements, which have changed little since the removal of the visual watch in the 1970s. Modernisation will provide the operational resilience needed; distribute work more effectively and efficiently around coastguard centres; make the most of the professional skills of our regular coastguards with levels of reward that match their responsibilities; and deliver improved support and co-ordination for our Coastguard Rescue Service and our search and rescue partners.
	The original proposals, which we consulted on last December, had been discussed and developed over several years by the previous Government. We said at the outset that we would have a genuine consultation and that we expected the outcome of the process to be improved and more resilient plans.
	We made it clear in July that we had listened to the views expressed in the first consultation. As a result, we announced that, in implementing a nationally networked system, we would retain more coastguard centres than originally proposed; keep all these centres operating 24/7; and retain more regular coastguard jobs. These plans will keep open at least one of each of the paired coastguard centres. Operational pairs have experience and knowledge in managing incidents across their shared geographical areas. Keeping at least one centre from each pair will therefore ensure that that experience and local knowledge is retained. In addition, as we explained in July, the operational costs of retaining the 10 centres overall plus a small centre in London will be offset by
	operating only one national maritime operations centre—MOC—with an unmanned back-up in Dover, rather than the two that were previously planned.
	The second consultation exercise, which is what this statement is about, invited views on four specific issues: the retention of both the centres at Stornoway and Shetland and their operation on a 24/7 basis; the change to a single maritime operations centre with an unmanned back-up in Dover; the retention of Holyhead rather than its paired centre at Liverpool; and the retention of Milford Haven rather than its paired centre at Swansea.
	The second consultation closed on 6 October. I should like again to thank all those who engaged in the process, including those in the service, members of the public and Members from both sides of the House. All responses were read and examined by an independent team, which has helped to develop the modernisation proposals. I am making its report on the issues identified in the consultation available today on the Maritime and Coastguard Agency website, and it will be available in the Library of the House.
	Let me now turn to the specific questions we posed in the second consultation. The support for keeping open both the centres at Stornoway and on Shetland was overwhelming, so I can confirm that we will keep them both open on a 24/7 basis.
	On the move to a single maritime centre, concerns were expressed about having both an unmanned centre and its back-up in the south, when they should be geographically separated, and about the possible reduction in capabilities at Aberdeen to co-ordinate oil or gas incidents if there was not to be a second main centre in Aberdeen. However, we continue to believe that with more centres remaining open on a 24/7 basis, there is sufficient cover not to need a second nationally networked system. Consequently, there will be one network in the south.
	We also believe that the back-up at Dover is sufficiently distant from the maritime operations centre in the Portsmouth-Southampton area—I shall return to that later—to provide the necessary resilience while minimising costs. However, we will retain additional specialist staff in Aberdeen to maintain the Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s close links with the oil and gas sector. Those jobs will remain.
	On the choice of Holyhead rather than Liverpool, representations were received stressing the scale and proximity of maritime and tourist activities at both locations; questioning the importance of the Welsh-language considerations highlighted in the first consultation; and concerning the running-cost advantages and higher disposal costs for Liverpool. We considered the responses carefully, but as we made clear in July, we have identified no operational or financial reasons for preferring one location to the other. In particular there are no significant differences in running costs.
	In the light of comments in the first consultation, it is also our view that familiarity with Welsh place names, rather than speaking Welsh, must be an important consideration supporting the retention of Holyhead. As a result, I have concluded that Holyhead should form part of the nationally networked system and that the co-ordination function at Liverpool will close. We plan to maintain a marine office, coastguard rescue team, coastal operational hub and a radio mast at the Liverpool site.
	Representations were also received about the proximity, particularly of maritime activities, at Milford Haven and Swansea. The representations concerned the perceived risks of having a centre so close to liquefied natural gas terminals at Milford Haven; better transport links in Swansea; and the wider potential recruitment pool in the Swansea area. I must reiterate, however, that within the nationally networked system, which will co-ordinate incidents in this area, there are no operational reasons for choosing one or other of these sites. Similarly, as was explained in July, we are satisfied that there are no considerations that favour either location.
	In addition, we have not recently experienced any recruitment problems at Milford Haven. As a result, I have concluded that it remains right that the choice of Milford Haven as the site for a continuing coastguard co-ordination centre should reflect the Department for Transport’s continuing substantial levels of employment in Swansea. This means that we will no longer have a coastguard co-ordination function at Swansea, but we plan that the building will remain in use as a coastal operations hub for the volunteer rescue teams. It will be at that site.
	Having reached these decisions, I am today publishing a short summary document that sets out a clear blueprint for the operation of the nationally networked coastguard co-ordination service comprising a single national operations centre in the Portsmouth area—again, I shall return to that—a back-up national operations centre at Dover; and centres at the MCA sites at Humber, Aberdeen, Shetland, Stornoway, Belfast, Holyhead, Milford Haven and Falmouth. This blueprint also sets out the previously announced provisional timetable for the closure of the other existing co-ordination centres before 31 March 2015. The centre at Solent will be replaced by the new maritime operations centre. This timetable remains our best estimate of when these centres will close, although clearly it will need to be kept under review to match operational requirements.
	The document also explains—and I stress this point—the strong commitment to the coastguard presence that will be retained at the existing MCA sites at Liverpool, Swansea and the Thames, even after the co-ordination centre function ends. There will be a similarly strong presence in the Clyde area, but not at the existing site.
	Finally, I would like to say something about the location of the new national maritime operations centre. With the full support of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, I am pleased to inform the House that the maritime operations centre will be housed in the vacant fire control centre building in Fareham—the significance of that with a former fireman standing here will be obvious. The building’s existing facilities mean that the maritime operations centre can be established quickly, allowing for an extensive programme of tests and trials to prove and refine the new concept of operations for maritime rescue co-ordination. Those tests and trials will be an important element in addressing the understandable concerns from many professional coastguards about the operation of the new system and will ensure no reduction in capabilities in the transition period. The choice of Fareham also makes best use of the Government’s existing estate and minimises up-front costs, offering best value for money.
	I understand, of course, that the closure of some existing co-ordination centres and the loss of some coastguard jobs will come as a disappointment to those directly affected. However, the decisions that I have announced today will deliver the modernised, nationally-networked and fully resilient coastguard service that we require for the future, while also reducing costs. Critically, these decisions will enable us better to support our coastguard volunteers and the front-line rescue capabilities on which the public and mariners depend. I commend this statement to the House.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I thank the Minister for an advance copy of his statement. I would expect no less a courtesy from a former fellow fireman, but it is especially generous coming from someone who served with the Essex brigade to someone from London. I apologise to the Minister and to you, Mr Speaker, that my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), the shadow Secretary of State is not present. She has pursued the issue vigorously, as have the shadow Secretary of State for Education and the shadow Leader of the House. She is particularly frustrated at being unable to be here today, especially as her own station is to close.
	I also thank the Minister for making today’s statement, ending the prolonged concern and uncertainty in coastguard communities. These exercises take time, and I know that the Minister made a considerable personal effort in travelling to various parts of the country to meet and engage with staff and others. That is to his credit. He will also have listened to the respected chief executive of the MCA, Sir Alan Massey, and the highly regarded chief coastguard, Rod Johnson. I, too, would like to take this opportunity to express our support for them and the entire coastguard service, which so professionally co-ordinates the first-class search and rescue capability around our coast.
	As a member of the Worshipful Company of Shipwrights, as former Shipping Minister and now as shadow Shipping Minister, I, like the Minister, am proud to wear the red ensign badge, in solidarity with and respect for British shipping in all its aspects. I have no doubt that the Minister has done his best within the limits set by the Treasury and his departmental budget; but equally, I have no doubt that these proposals are at least partly driven by financial constraints. He knows the concerns out there about shipping safety owing to the loss of Nimrods, the ending of the emergency towing vessel contract and the outstanding review of the air-sea search and rescue service. The Select Committee on Transport, under the excellent chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), echoed that concern when it said:
	“The evidence…raises serious concerns that safety will be jeopardised if these proposals proceed.”
	In that case the Government were right to look again and amend their original proposals.
	I would be grateful if the Minister responded to a few questions. In the original plan he envisaged two operational centres, we assumed for resilience. Can he reassure the House that the non-staffed back-up will be able to do the job if the main centre crashes? Can he also say how quickly it would be up and running under such circumstances? Can he tell us how many coastguards will remain in full-time employment after this modernisation
	programme? I think he said that there would be more, but I assume that that is against the original consultation document, not the present establishment. Part of our review in government was about addressing low pay among coastguards historically, compared with similar staff, with similar duties, in the other emergency services. Given that remaining staff will be undertaking more work with more responsibilities and that we anticipate they will need to be upskilled, will this modernisation address that historic anomaly? My last question is when we can expect a statement on the future of the air-sea search and rescue service.
	In conclusion, we welcome the Minister’s acceptance of the need to keep both Shetland and Stornoway, and we are relieved that the Department proposes 24/7 cover at all the remaining stations. His decision to retain one of each pair of twinned stations is an acknowledgement that the question of local knowledge weighed heavily on him and his officials. I am sure he will understand, however, that in a number of communities out there now, there will be real disappointment and even anger today. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answers.

Michael Penning: I thank my friend for his comments: we agree on most things, but occasionally disagree; perhaps we will disagree a little bit today. Let me answer the hon. Gentleman’s four specific questions.
	In the original proposal, which we inherited from the previous Administration, two MOCs were required, not least because the majority of the stations would have gone part time. They are no longer going part time; they are 24/7, so the resilience within the system, which is not there today, will give us the communications resilience that we need. If we need to move into the unmanned MOC we will do so. We looked at this carefully and found that in 99.9% of cases we would not have to do this, even if the MOC went down initially, because the other stations will pick it up, and we are moving towards the Dover MOC.
	Pay is a real issue: £13,500 as a basic salary for someone working in the emergency services is a disgrace. I know that the shadow Minister looked at this carefully when he was in my position, which is why the original proposals were on his former desk and on the desk of the Minister before him and the one before that. We have done something about it so that we have pay, conditions and promotion opportunities for the people who serve so well.
	In the original proposals I inherited, coastguard staffing levels would have gone down to 244. Under the proposals I have announced today, the staffing level will be 314. The shadow Minister will have to wait for the Secretary of State to make her announcement on search and rescue helicopters.

Sheryll Murray: The Prime Minister told this House on 30 March:
	“We want to make changes only if they improve coastguard support that people in fishing communities and elsewhere get…If that is not the case, we will obviously have to reconsider reforms”.—[Official Report, 30 March 2011; Vol. 526, c. 336.]
	If, as many sea users at all levels from rear admirals to professional yachtsmen believe, the trial of a new control centre demonstrates the loss of local knowledge to be
	an added danger to any sea user, will the Minister reconsider his plans for closing any coastguard co-ordination centres, as the Prime Minister has already mentioned?

Michael Penning: I thank my hon. Friend for her important question. One point in having Fareham open so early is that we will be able to trial the new system early, which will mean that no centres will close before the robustness of the system is demonstrated. Should there be any blips in the system, I can assure my hon. Friend that no station will close until we have the level of resilience that we do not have today.

Gemma Doyle: The Minister’s proposals mean a cut in staffing levels covering the Clyde area of 56% in comparison with a UK average cut of 33%. I see nothing in the statement that changes that. Why does the Minister think that the Clyde, which is the busiest area for callout, should have a disproportionately higher cut in staffing?

Michael Penning: I am sorry if I misled the hon. Lady, but Clyde will close as a co-ordination centre. It is already paired with Belfast. Belfast regularly covers the resilience and has the local knowledge that is necessary. That is why we took the decision to keep one of every pair open. I understand that it is sad for hon. Lady, but there will be coastguards working in the Clyde area, although it will not be a co-ordination centre.

Charles Kennedy: Whilst welcoming the sensible concessions made, not least with regard to the west coast, the Minches and the northern waters—I have to say that the earlier suggestions flew in the face of all common sense—I ask the Minister whether he will none the less accept that there is a considerable element of gamble here. Given the warnings from the seafarers and the emergency services, who have done this job successfully for generations, about what might occur, will the Minister at least confirm from the Dispatch Box today that if circumstances merit it, he would be willing to reopen this entire recasting and go back to the drawing board?

Michael Penning: I respect the right hon. Gentleman’s views, but we took this action because the original proposals were flawed. They were not my proposals; they were the last Government’s proposals.
	The point of introducing the resilience that does not currently exist is to end the scaremongering about safety. Safety standards are not good today, but they will be good from now on because of that resilience. In most of the coastguard stations that I visited around the country, including stations in Scotland, I was told, “We know that we have to cut the number of stations to nine or 10.”

Louise Ellman: I recognise that significant changes have been made since the Government’s original proposals, but what work has been done to ensure that, notwithstanding the scale of the closures, local knowledge will be retained so that lives can be safeguarded?

Michael Penning: I fully respect the Chairman of the Select Committee on Transport, whose report helped me to decide how to proceed. The point of keeping one
	centre in a pair which regularly covers the topography of the other centre’s area is to retain the local knowledge about which so many of those who were consulted expressed concern. I know that there will be disappointment in some parts of the country, but the resilience to which I have referred is more important. We need a 21st-century coastguard.

Caroline Dinenage: My constituents will be very disappointed that the new maritime operations centre will not be based at the Daedalus site. Can the Minister assure us that the hugely experienced coastguards who will lose their jobs at Lee-on-Solent will be helped to find work at the new Fareham site?

Michael Penning: I thank my hon. Friend for that important question. When possible we need to retain the experience that we have at the co-ordination centres, particularly the one at the Solent, and we have no intention of making compulsory redundancies there. There will be more job offers at the new MOC, and I hope that as many people as possible transfer to it.

Angus Robertson: I thank the Minister for letting me see his statement in advance, and for the communication in which he has engaged with my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil).
	We now know that two out of five Scottish coastguard stations will close, and that we have only an interim contract on the emergency tugs. The Government have announced the scrapping of the entire fleet of fixed-wing long-range search and rescue aircraft, and the future of the air rescue co-ordination centre at Kinloss is still uncertain. Is this not the time to devolve those powers to the Scottish Parliament so that they can be taken seriously?

Michael Penning: No.

Paul Maynard: I thank the Minister for his statement, and pay tribute to the great personal effort that I know he has put into visiting every affected coastguard station to ensure that consultation was both open-ended and reasoned. Can he none the less reassure me that when one of a pair of co-ordination centres closes, there will be a structure in place to ensure that local knowledge is transferred between staff and we do not see a sudden cliff-edge changeover?

Michael Penning: The closures are planned for March 2015, so there will be no cliff edge. I repeat that, having studied the results of the consultation extremely carefully, we decided to adopt the pair-based system because the current local knowledge of the topography would be retained. When I visited Swansea—and I expect that a Swansea Member will ask a question shortly—the station was closed while I was meeting the staff, and Milford Haven took over the local knowledge. That sort of thing is happening regularly, and it will introduce more resilience to the system.

Frank Doran: I welcome the Minister’s recognition of the unique position of the Aberdeen station and its links with the oil and gas industry. However, although he has accepted that there needs to be a back-up MOC—which was not included
	in the plans announced last September—I understand that it is to be a part-time empty station in Dover. The Aberdeen station, which was included in the original December proposals, is fully manned, and could act immediately with a full staff complement in an emergency. What assurances can the Minister give about the security of the system in such circumstances?

Michael Penning: The Aberdeen station is not fully manned as a MOC today. It is a co-ordination centre. Under the previous proposals, if we had taken out the second MOC there would have been 23 staff in Scotland, whereas 69 will be working for me at the co-ordination centres in Scotland. We considered carefully whether we would need a second MOC if we kept the twin stations open 24/7, and decided that, with the twin stations open and a nationally resilient communications system, we did not need a full-time second MOC.

Bernard Jenkin: May I thank my hon. Friend for this difficult statement and for the sensitive way in which he has approached these very difficult decisions? Can he confirm that he is, in effect, announcing the closure of the coastguard centre at Walton-on-the-Naze today? Will he understand how much of a disappointment that is to local people, and to me and my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell), who have made representations to him on this matter? How can we ensure that the local knowledge of the locally employed people there is somehow included in the new arrangements, not least in respect of their job opportunities, even if they wish to continue to live locally?

Michael Penning: My hon. Friend knows that I have listened very carefully to the consultation, and to delegations from across the House and across the country. Yes, his local station will close, but the station that covers it on a regular basis will stay open, the local knowledge will still be there and, wherever possible, those staff will be transferred to the new stations.

Lady Hermon: I warmly welcome the confirmation in today’s statement that Northern Ireland’s only coastguard centre will be remaining open in Bangor in my constituency. I am very pleased to put on the record the fact that the Minister listened very carefully to all the political voices raised right across the board in Northern Ireland in support of retaining that coastguard centre. Before he agrees to come back to Bangor at my invitation—we would love to have him back, with the good news—will he kindly confirm that he has sought and obtained reassurances from the Irish Government about the continued availability of Irish helicopters, deployed from Sligo and paid for by the Irish Government, to assist the Northern Ireland coastguard so ably, as they have done in the past?

Michael Penning: I thank the hon. Lady for her kind comments. It appears that I was, with my proposals, the only politician in many years to manage to unite all the political parties in Northern Ireland. To be fair, I looked very carefully at where the centre should be; Belfast covered the Clyde, the Clyde covered Belfast and the decision to keep the centre in Belfast was taken for resilience purposes. I have now met two Transport Secretaries from the Republic of Ireland and I understand
	that they have no plans to remove the excellent service they give us. We will share that service as our new search and rescue helicopter is introduced too.

Menzies Campbell: Does my hon. Friend understand the degree of disappointment that there will be in my constituency that the opportunity of the second consultation has not been taken to provide a reprieve for the station at Fife Ness? Furthermore, is he aware that fishermen, yachtsmen and all the seafarers who use the firth of Forth believe that his decision is profoundly mistaken?

Michael Penning: I apologise to my right hon. and learned Friend if I have not been able to make the announcement that he wanted me to make today, but this consultation was not about Fife—that matter was dealt with in the first consultation and it was finished when the previous Secretary of State made his statements to this House. Although there are concerns, our current system has a national emergency service without any national resilience. That cannot be acceptable and I was not willing to sit, as the Minister, and let that carry on.

Nia Griffith: Will the Minister tell us exactly how much money he will be saving by closing Swansea coastguard station, given that there will be a continued presence at that building? How does that compare with the money he would have saved had he chosen to close the centre at Milford Haven instead?

Michael Penning: As I said in my statement, there is almost no difference in the cost savings—the cost is in staff. May I say to the hon. Lady that under the proposals that I inherited only one out of the three centres in Wales would have stayed open and there would have been 10 staff in Wales, whereas there are 46 with my announcement today?

Richard Drax: I know that the Minister will appreciate, because we have sent many submissions to him that Portland coastguard should remain open, how devastated my constituents are that this decision has been made. Will he reassure me and my constituents that if the trial at Fareham does not meet expectations, reopening the Portland centre will be at the top of the agenda?

Michael Penning: I thank my hon. Friend for reiterating the importance to his constituents of Portland. However, I am sure that he would join me in saying that the front-line emergency personnel—the volunteers—are the most important people here and their resilience and ability to do their job is the most important thing. We will be able to enhance their training and enhance the pay in our coastguard co-ordination centres. Not in a million years could I have been able to afford to build the facility in Fareham. It was folly of the previous Government to do so and I will utilise that building to its best abilities.

Bill Esterson: I remind the Minister that the two issues that will anger people about the decision on Crosby are those to do with local knowledge of the north-west coast of England and the west of Scotland, which will now be lost, and those to do with the proposal put forward by the staff to host
	the maritime operations centre at a significant saving. He said in answer to an earlier question that he was not looking at new plans in the second consultation, but would it not have been a good idea for the Government to have done so and to have considered the good ideas coming forward from staff, such as those proposed at Crosby?

Michael Penning: On the hon. Gentleman’s second point, the consultation was quite specific about whether we should have one MOC or two MOCs. The second proposal was for a MOC in Aberdeen and I needed to say that we were not going to do that if we were to have the money to keep the other stations open and that we would have the resilience without it. Even though the facilities at Swansea are good, they are nothing compared with the fire control centre I have taken over in Fareham, and I invite any hon. Members to visit that facility. The communications and build quality are second-to-none. As I have said, I could never have afforded to build it so the deal that I have done with the Secretary of State is absolutely brilliant. As the hon. Gentleman knows, when I was at Crosby—on my very first visit—the full-time coastguards told me that having the existing 18 centres was wrong and they suggested there should be nine. I am sorry that Crosby is not one of them.

Julian Brazier: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on producing a well-balanced package under difficult circumstances? In particular, I welcome the promises on reward for our underpaid coastguards. I join him, too, in welcoming the huge contribution made by volunteers, including Whitstable RNLI. When he makes proposals on search and rescue helicopters, will he look closely at the hybrid arrangements in north America, through which the armed forces reserves offer a very cost-effective approach?

Michael Penning: Some of what my hon. Friend has just asked for is above my pay grade and even comes under a completely different Department. The Secretary of State is sitting next to me and I am sure that she has heard the message loud and clear.
	May I also reiterate—I hope I mentioned it in my statement—my complete admiration for the volunteers, whether they are in the volunteer lifeboats of the RNLI or the 3,500 plus volunteers who go out on a regular basis and put their lives at risk for us?

Iain McKenzie: It will come as no surprise to the Minister that, as the Member for Inverclyde, where the Clyde coastguard is situated, I am deeply disappointed with today’s announcement, which comes on the back of 800 new engagements in the consultation process, tens of thousands of signatures sent to the Prime Minister in support of retaining the Clyde coastguard and numerous letters from organisations to the Minister. How does the Minister intend to assure people on the west coast of Scotland that safety is paramount and that the loss of the Clyde coastguard station will not mean that the area off the coast of the west of Scotland will be a no-shipping zone?

Michael Penning: I know that it is difficult, but hon. Members should be careful about the emotive language that they use. When the Clyde co-ordination centre is not operational for whatever reason, its pair does the
	job on a regular basis. That happens and it happens around the country. That was why we went to this system and that was part of the submission. If the hon. Gentleman is disappointed by what I have said today, I must say to him that the previous Government’s proposals, which were on my desk when I arrived, were 10 times worse.

Adrian Sanders: There will be great disappointment across south Devon at the announcement of the closure of the Brixham control centre. I know that the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), if she were able to be in the Chamber today, would share my concern. Can the Minister guarantee that there will continue to be a coastguard presence, if not the control centre, in the Torbay area? Will he consider the possibility of bringing other coastguard activities, such as the training of control centre and rescue staff and even volunteers, into the Torbay area to build on the reputation that the coastguard service has built up over decades?

Michael Penning: There is acceptance that the quality of Her Majesty’s coastguard is world-renowned. I was at the International Maritime Organisation’s assembly yesterday morning and the leader of the American coastguard was talking to me about that particular point. The proposals we have finished with today will allow us to have more money for full-time staff to train the volunteers, more equipment and a professional career and pay structure that we would all be happy with, rather than the structure we have today.

Martin Caton: Surely, the most perverse aspect of today’s statement is the proposed closure of Swansea. What justification do the Government give for this? They want to expand the DFT’s economic footprint in west Wales. What is the impact of that? Perhaps the Minister could explain why a so-called employment measure will take jobs away from an area of higher unemployment to protect them in an area of lower unemployment. And how on earth can he justify leaving the Bristol channel, which is one of the most dangerous waters around our country, without a 24-hour coastguard station?

Michael Penning: On the first of the two substantive points that the hon. Gentleman raises, the Department and the Secretary of State are responsible for in excess of 5,000 DFT staff in the Swansea area. The economic effect on the small number of staff at Milford Haven is disproportionately beneficial to them compared with what would be the case at Swansea. That is what we have said both in the statement and all the way through. On the second point, when I was at Swansea attending a meeting with the staff, the station was switched off and Milford Haven was covering the very dangerous areas to which the hon. Gentleman refers. If that had not been safe, I am sure the coastguard would not have turned the station off.

Sarah Newton: I very much welcome the reassurance that the Minister gave to my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) that the safety of people on our seas will be paramount in all his considerations as the proposals are developed. Will he give me further reassurance that the front-line coastguards at the co-ordination centres that will remain will be given the opportunity to work
	alongside the coastguards developing the new processes and procedures in the MOCs so that we will truly have the resilient and first-class service that I know he aspires to achieve?

Michael Penning: A shocking thing that I found when I took over this job and visited co-ordination centres around the country was the complete lack of co-ordination. The pairs were linked but apart from that there was no national resilience at all. The whole point of doing this is to give us a 21st-century emergency service with that level of communication and skills. Training will be paramount. That will be done not only in the MOCs but across the co-ordination centres because they will be picking up calls from other areas just as the MOCs will be.

Katy Clark: Will the Minister clarify the position of the Clyde station given that the lease of the premises is coming to an end at the end of next year? Is that when it will close? This is of great concern given that the maritime operations centre will not be in place then, so there will be no national resilience, and that Belfast is a far smaller station than the Clyde station at the moment. Does he understand the massive concern that we are leading to a situation in which there will be very little cover on the Clyde and far fewer resources than now?

Michael Penning: It will not be the case that there will be little cover on the Clyde because that station is paired and the pairing will cover it no matter what. That happens today and has been the case for many years. There is no drawback at all to the front-line emergency services carrying out the rescues. Indeed, the exact opposite is the case—I am enhancing them, I am going to have more paid staff training them and there will be more safety and more cover. I am very aware that the lease on the station is running out, which is why I said in my statement that we will keep a strong footprint in the Clyde area—but it will not be at the existing station.

Anne Main: I am pleased that the Minister anticipates the operations centre at Fareham coming on line quickly. Will he give some indication of when he anticipates that happening and how long the transitional period might be?

Michael Penning: We already have the keys to the operations centre in Fareham and we have been showing staff around. I have not formally signed a contract yet, but I hope to do so in the next few weeks.

Mark Durkan: May I associate myself with the comments of the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) complimenting the Minister on his accessibility during this exercise? Will he assure us that the reduced number of MOCs, with their extended geographic catchments, will give the same quality and level of support as they previously have to our voluntary search and rescue services, which provide such a strong service on our inland waterways?

Michael Penning: I am very aware of the unique geographical situation and size of Northern Ireland’s inland waterways. That is one of the reasons why I gave careful consideration to the question of whether it
	should be Belfast or Liverpool, and why we kept Belfast. The other reason was the unique situation of a border with another EU member state. Also, Belfast has shown time and again its ability to cover for the Clyde so that the pairing system works.

Peter Aldous: I commend the Minister for the comprehensive and sympathetic way in which he has gone about his further consultation. I acknowledge that one of the paired stations will remain open on a 24/7 basis, but I am concerned that on the east coast it is not the one at Yarmouth, but the one on Humberside. My concern focuses on the broads and the myriad internal waterways. Concern has been expressed to me by the Broads Authority and the Norfolk and Suffolk Boating Association that local knowledge cannot be provided from the Humberside. Will my hon. Friend consider a station operated on a seasonal basis, much the same as for the Thames, to deal with that area?

Michael Penning: I fully understand my hon. Friend’s concerns. If I went down that avenue, I would open up a Pandora’s box and my Secretary of State would shoot me. I have holidayed nearly every year for the past 30 years on the Norfolk broads, especially across Breydon water. I understand the concerns, but I think the cover will be resilient enough. I hope people from Yarmouth transfer to the Humber. The new career and pay structures will make it much more worth while than was ever the case in the past, but I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns.

Mr Speaker: We are always interested to hear of the Minister’s holiday arrangements, as well as his fear of the death penalty.

Dave Watts: The Minister assured the House that there would be some Liverpool-based facility. Will he clarify whether there will be any people in that facility who will be able to rescue anyone?

Michael Penning: The rescue facilities in the Liverpool area will be enhanced. We will utilise the buildings that we have so that we do not rent new buildings for the sake of it. We will have more trainers, more enhanced staff, and the volunteers will provide a much better service for the public to rely on.

Iain Stewart: Although my Milton Keynes South constituency is probably as far from any part of the UK coastline as it is possible to be, I take a close interest in these matters as a member of the Transport Committee. I congratulate the Minister on balancing so many competing priorities and representations so objectively and fairly, but can he confirm to me that he is still reversing a key flaw in the original proposals, which was for only daylight operations at some stations?

Michael Penning: That is one of the key aspects that we examined to see where resilience would come from. As we looked at the possibility of not having a second full-time MOC, the only way to provide resilience was
	for all the remaining stations to be open 24/7. That is why they will all be operational 24 hours, not just with daylight manning.

Andrew Miller: Pursuant to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Mr Watts), and given the diversity of risks in Liverpool bay, ranging from the myriad estuaries to complex offshore facilities, is the Minister satisfied that the co-ordination facilities in the Liverpool bay area will be adequate? I share his view about national resilience. Will he look very carefully to make sure that what he is delivering meets what he says?

Michael Penning: As an ex-firefighter, I would never in a million years propose something that I did not feel would have the resilience, the technology, the skills and the local topography to allow it to take place. The volunteers in the Liverpool area, particular in the area that I visited, have unbelievable skills, which will be enhanced, not hindered.

Brandon Lewis: Although there will be huge disappointment in Great Yarmouth at the loss of our coastguard station, we note the Minister’s earlier comments about the job opportunities, the local knowledge and the resilience that could be improved with the Humber pair being kept. We are grateful for his recent visit to Great Yarmouth to visit the Caister independent lifeboat. Will he confirm that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency will continue to work as closely with independent lifeboats such as those at Caister and Hemsby as it does with the excellent Royal National Lifeboat Institution?

Michael Penning: One of the great things about having the RNLI is that it is a brand known worldwide and a fantastic facility. However, little is known in this country about the volunteer lifeboats. There are huge numbers, including the one that I visited and went out to sea on at Caister recently, where the crew desperately tried to make me seasick, unsuccessfully. I can assure the House that not only will the facility be as good as it is now, but it will be better.

Russell Brown: I am sure that the Minister will recognise the bitter disappointment of those in my locality who campaigned so hard to retain both the Liverpool and Clyde facilities, which serve 200 miles of coastline. The Scottish Government Transport Minister failed to recognise the significance of Liverpool to the Solway coast, but did the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Under-Secretary of State make any representations to him about retaining the Clyde facility?

Michael Penning: The Scotland Office was fully informed of the proposal. I phoned the Minister yesterday to tell him, and I did the same for the Wales Office. This is a national emergency service, so the House and the Government are fully responsible for it. I understand the concerns, but we must reiterate that at the moment we do not have a national resilience service. If two of these pairs go down, there is no way that we can provide the cover necessary in a 21st century service. This should have been done years ago, as I know my hon. Friend will admit.

Bob Stewart: Each year, the coastal waters have more and more incidents. Will my hon. Friend assure me that the surveillance and subsequent safety of our coastal waters will be maintained under the new proposals?

Michael Penning: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that these days in a co-ordination centre binoculars are not the usual piece of equipment used to survey what is going on at sea. The electronic equipment that we use is highly technical and works very well. In times of high need, we will be able to move that around the network so that other less important jobs that are already flowing through can be taken on by other stations or the MOC while new emergencies that are coming on board, with the local knowledge that is so desperately needed, can be facilitated.

Albert Owen: May I join the Minister and the shadow Minister in paying tribute to the search and rescue family, including volunteers of coastguard services, for the excellent work that they do in protecting our coastline and coastal waters? May I also thank the Minister for reiterating the strategic importance of Holyhead and invite him to visit it, because he did not have a chance to do so during the consultation period? Will he assure the House that there will be constructive dialogue between management and the work force, including the unions, on this modernisation programme, so that they are fully involved and their ideas and local skills are used to make up this resilience that he talks about? Will he also assure the House that people will be told of redundancy and of any displacement that there will throughout the United Kingdom in plenty of time?

Michael Penning: I have been working with the Public and Commercial Services union since day one when I became the Minister. I met its representatives very early on. They have been desperate for this issue to be resolved once and for all. They know the service needs to be modernised and that there had to be closures. They knew that all the way through, and I have discussed that with them fully. They were part of the group that looked at the proposals and the consultation documents that came in. We will work closely with the unions and the non-unionised members of staff, so that we ensure that whatever happens they know. I do not think that there will be any redundancies in Holyhead, but, overall, we will do our level best to make sure that it is natural wastage and that we keep the skills within the service.

Julian Huppert: I welcome the use of the vacant fire control centre at Fareham. It gives us a chance to recoup some of the half a billion spent on the fire control centres scrapped last year and described by the Public Accounts Committee as flawed from the outset. Will the Minister assure me that the coastguard modernisation process will not suffer the same problems that led to the disaster with the fire control centres? In particular, how will the link between the maritime operations centre and the coastguard stations work in practice?

Michael Penning: Rather than just using the radio, the new centre has unbelievable communication. The state-of-the-art technology has been put into that building at
	huge cost to the taxpayer, and it is a real shame that I cannot use all the buildings around the country and can only use the one.

Geraint Davies: The Minister in his statement when considering the pros and cons of Milford Haven and Swansea said that “there are no operational reasons for choosing one of these sites rather than the other”, and that the building in Swansea will remain operational. He said that Swansea was switched off in a planned way to enable Milford Haven to take over, but will he accept that on a number of occasions Milford Haven has closed down in an unplanned way, that Swansea is the second busiest coastguard, that the protest involved hundreds of thousands of people compared with a much smaller protest from Milford Haven, and that people locally will rightly see this as a cynical political, rather than operational, move that will affect the risk to Cardiff, Newport, Swansea and Devon?

Michael Penning: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s disappointment. I went to Swansea and, after the driver drove through the picket, went back to speak with everyone on the picket line as well as all the staff. I fully admit that there was a planned shutdown during my visit, just as there was a planned shutdown while the refurbishment took place at Swansea, when Milford covered it for weeks and weeks. I am sorry that he was not fully informed about the number of closures that took place in the past. He is absolutely right that sometimes stations go down without warning, which is why we need a national resilience system, which we do not have today. That is the most important thing.

Martin Vickers: The Minister specifically mentioned the importance of the links between the gas and oil sectors in Aberdeen. He will be aware that that is equally important in the Humber, an area where there is likely to be a rapid expansion in the energy sector in coming years. Will he assure me that he is fully satisfied that the expansion will be fully catered for and that it will be kept under regular review?

Michael Penning: My hon. Friend raises an important point. I think that he would accept that there is a structural difference between the oil and gas sector and offshore wind. We are working much more closely with the Department of Energy and Climate Change and the Crown Estate, which owns the seabed, than ever before. Under the previous Administration decisions were made and the Department for Transport was then told much later. We will work together closely and address any risks as needed.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for his statement and associate myself with the kind comments of the hon. Members for North Down (Lady Hermon) and for Foyle (Mark Durkan). The Minister came over to Northern Ireland, listened and clearly delivered, and we are thankful that the Northern Ireland coastguard will be part of the strategy for the whole of the United Kingdom. He indicated that the Northern Ireland coastguard will be responsible not only for Northern Ireland, but for the Clyde. What staff and resources will be made available to the Northern Ireland coastguard to deliver a full and better service?

Michael Penning: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Bangor co-ordination centre already covers the Clyde on a regular basis. We will ensure that it is fully staffed, that staff have the right pay and conditions, which we will negotiate with the trade unions and those who are not in the trade unions and—I reiterate—that we have the sort of resilience that the service deserves.

Road Safety (No. 2)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Bob Russell: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision to reduce the permitted blood alcohol level for drivers from 80 mg per 100 ml of blood to 50 mg; to empower the police to suspend an individual’s driving licence pending assessment of his or her suitability to drive; and for connected purposes.
	Last Sunday was the world day of remembrance for road traffic victims, which was established in 1993 by the UK-based charity RoadPeace and adopted by the United Nations in 2005 as a response to road crash victims’ need for public recognition. My Bill is dedicated to the memory of two teenage girls who lived in my constituency and whose lives were cruelly taken by the selfish attitude of two drivers in separate incidents almost three years apart. Although the circumstances of each death were different, the outcome was the same for both families: the loss of a much-loved daughter who had her life ahead of her and all that that entailed. Indeed, given current average life expectancy, perhaps 65 years of life were stolen from them—65 Christmases and 65 birthdays. Their life expectations, and possibly marriage and children, were destroyed in seconds because of irresponsible drivers.
	Only those who have lost a child, particularly in tragic circumstances, can truly appreciate the enormity of such a loss. I therefore empathise with the parents and admire all they are doing in memory of their respective daughters to campaign to make our roads safer so that other families do not suffer the grief that they continue to experience.
	The two girls, 14-year-old Jordan Bell and 16-year-old Cassie McCord, lived in the same part of Colchester, little more than a mile apart and with the former ground of Colchester United football club on Layer road midway between their two homes, but to the best of my knowledge they did not know each other. Jordan was a pupil at Alderman Blaxill secondary school and Cassie was a student at Colchester sixth-form college.
	Had there been a lower drink-drive limit in March 2008, the driver who killed Jordan might not have ventured on to the road. He was exceeding the 30 mph speed limit when he struck Jordan as she sought to use a central island refuge on Layer road. Tests revealed that he had been drinking, but he was just 2 mg under the drink-drive limit—78 mg to 100 ml of blood—when he was breathalysed some time after the incident. For taking Jordan’s life, he was fined for careless driving and speeding. I will return to this incident later to describe the campaigning by her parents, Steve and Michelle Bell, to get the drink-drive limit reduced to 50 mg, in line with most of Europe.
	Cassie McCord was killed in February by a driver who should never have been on the road. Police were called to a supermarket petrol forecourt where an elderly motorist had caused concern. He was not on the public highway, but in the grounds of the supermarket. They drove his car home, informed him that they would be reporting him to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency because of their concerns about his ability to drive, and they advised him not to drive again. That was on a
	Friday. On the Monday morning, before the DVLA could act and ignoring the police advice, the 87-year-old driver ventured out on to busy roads and into Colchester town centre, where he mounted the pavement and killed Cassie, who was walking with friends to Colchester sixth-form college.
	Cassie’s mother is now campaigning to give police the powers—subject to safeguards, obviously—to suspend a driver’s licence with immediate effect for, say, 72 hours if they have major concerns about the driver’s ability to function. That would give the DVLA time to institute the more formal process it currently operates. Such police action would, I suggest, require the approval of an officer of senior rank, such as superintendent or above.
	Had such a power existed earlier this year, the police could have suspended the driving licence of the 87-year-old motorist, and that I think would have deterred him from taking his car back on the road where he killed Cassie McCord. There is a sad postscript. The driver has since died, and no charges were ever brought against him.
	There appears to be a loophole in the law. Police have the power to impound a vehicle that is in an unsafe condition, and they can arrest someone for being under the influence of drink or drugs, but seemingly they do not have the power to prevent a driver, whom they consider to be unfit on health grounds, from continuing to drive.
	The campaigns by the grieving parents, Mr and Mrs Bell and Mrs McCord, have been brilliantly supported by the award-winning local newspaper, the Essex County Standard, with the reports of chief reporter, Wendy Brading, showing what a campaigning newspaper can do on behalf of the community that it serves.
	The campaign by Mr and Mrs Bell—Mr Bell is a member of Her Majesty’s armed forces, serving with 16 Air Assault Brigade based at Colchester garrison—is one that led the parents to have a personal meeting with former road safety Minister Mr Paul Clark. I accompanied them to his office at the Department for Transport’s Great Minster house. It was a rather moving occasion, and I cannot thank Mr Clark enough for the way in which matters were handled. His warmth and sincerity meant a lot to my constituents.
	We left buoyed by what had transpired, and with a degree of confidence that the drink-drive limit would be reduced. That was certainly our belief, given what occurred at our meeting with the then road safety Minister. Indeed, the North report, published after our meeting with the Minister, recommended a reduction in the drink-drive limit as part of wide-ranging reforms to the driving laws.
	It is therefore with considerable annoyance and disbelief that I note how the incoming coalition Government ignored the North report recommendation and decided to leave the drink-drive limit unchanged. My Bill aims to reinstate what the North report recommended. I am pleased to say that in September it was announced that the Parliament in Northern Ireland was looking to lower the drink-drive limit to 50 mg. I suggest that we do the same in the rest of the United Kingdom.
	Let me tell the House what Mrs Bell said only last week about the loss of her daughter:
	“Every day is a struggle. It is a constant reminder. You try to stay positive, but you are always thinking of the things Jordan will miss out on. She missed her prom and the chance to go to university and getting married and having a family. That has been taken away from us.”
	Last week, a tree was planted in Cassie’s memory at Colchester sixth-form college where she was studying. Her friends have launched a campaign called “Cassie’s Law”, backed by the Essex County Standard, and a petition form can be obtained by clicking on the link to “Cassie’s Law” at essexcountystandard.co.uk.
	Mrs McCord said last week:
	“Nearly everyone we have spoken to about the petition has been supportive. If the Police had been able to take the driver's licence away, Cassie would still be here.”
	Mrs McCord would like doctors to use their discretion to write to the DVLA if they feel that a patient is unfit to drive, and she would also like drivers aged 70 and above to be medically assessed to ensure that their reactions are sufficient to allow them to drive safely.
	I never use the term “road accident”, because in most instances what occurs is the result of driver failure of some sort. As a member of the Institute of Advanced Motorists, I believe that it would be in everyone’s interests if every driver were required to take refresher driving courses every few years, because it is clear that some people think that, having passed the driving test, they are competent to drive for life. We all know that that is not true. There is some appalling driving, of which tailgating, speeding and overtaking in the nearside lane are some of the most worrying examples.
	Successive Governments are to be applauded for past actions, which last year saw the smallest number of people killed on our roads since records began 85 years ago. Given that the number of vehicles in the UK is at a record high, that comparison is an even greater achievement than just the bare figures show.
	Britain’s roads are the safest in Europe. Worryingly, however, the number of deaths on our roads has started to increase in recent months, so the coalition Government should redouble their efforts to reduce them. The aim should be zero deaths—an impossible dream, I recognise—but as every death is an individual tragedy we should strive to avoid every death. Loss of life in a road crash is the only form of involuntary sudden death that is somehow considered as just one of those things. Well, that is not an attitude a responsible Government should take.
	We should not be creating situations where it is known that actions will inevitably lead to more crashes, more injuries and more deaths. Although this is not part of my Bill, I suggest to Transport Ministers that if they raise the speed limit on the motorways, allow moving traffic on to motorway hard shoulders and reduce the frequency of MOT vehicle inspections, they do so in the full knowledge that they will be responsible for more crashes, more injuries, and more deaths. I would not want that on my conscience.
	I have, through a written parliamentary question, invited the new Secretary of State for Transport, who I am pleased is in her place, to visit a hospital accident and emergency department to discuss with the medical team there the consequences of dealing with people injured on our roads. I did that in the wake of suggestions to raise the motorway speed limit to 80 mph.
	Road safety has interested me for nearly 50 years. As a trainee reporter, I used to cover inquests at a time when road deaths were more common than they are today. I simply could not accept that they were accidents—all could and should have been avoided. For many
	years, I was chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on road safety. On 19 December 2000, I had an Adjournment debate entitled “Road Crashes”, reported in
	Hansard
	from column 333. I am proud to say that when I was a borough councillor in Colchester, I pioneered the first traffic-calming scheme in the town and the first 20 mph speed limit in Essex. All people who hold elected office have a duty to make our roads safer.
	I return to the substance of my Bill. I would like to quote what Mrs Wendy Brading, who is trusted by both families, of the Essex County Standard told me yesterday:
	“The point both mothers make is that the drivers in each case had made a selfish choice. One chose to drive while 2 mgs under the drink-drive limit, the other despite advice from the Police. Both acted selfishly and two girls died as a result. This is what they cannot forgive and what has spurred them on, to ensure other families do not go through what they have due to someone’s selfishness.”
	In conclusion, my Bill calls for the lowering of the drink-drive limit and for the introduction of measures for the immediate suspension of the licences of those it is clear have health issues. Such measures will assist in saving the lives of innocent people, such as Jordan Bell and Cassie McCord, who were two lovely teenagers cruelly robbed of their lives.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Bob Russell, Mr David Amess, Mr Mike Hancock, Kelvin Hopkins, Dr Julian Huppert, Andrew Miller, Lisa Nandy, Jim Shannon and Andrew Stephenson present the Bill,
	Bob Russell accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 30 March 2012, and to be printed (Bill 251).

Opposition Day
	 — 
	[12th Allotted Day – Second Part (Half Day)]

Pensioners and Winter Fuel Payments

Nigel Dodds: I beg to move,
	That this House is concerned about pressures on pensioner households this winter with high and rising fuel prices; notes that the Winter Fuel Payment will be £50 lower in the winter of 2011-12 than in each of the last three years for a pensioner aged 60 or over and £100 lower for those pensioners aged 80 or over; and calls on the Government to review the impact of its decisions on Winter Fuel Payments and VAT, and to announce in the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement urgent steps to ease the burden on pensioner households.
	It is a pleasure to move the motion standing in my name and the names of my right hon. and hon. colleagues. This motion is about a life and death issue. Fuel poverty and the effects of cold winter weather on the elderly are a lethal combination. Only today, the Office for National Statistics has published figures for cold-related deaths for England and Wales. That report shows that in 2010-11 there were some 25,700 excess winter deaths among old people in England and Wales, which is roughly the same number as last year. However, last year’s figure represented a big increase on the previous year. More people are dying as a result of living in a cold house in the United Kingdom than are dying in road traffic accidents each year.
	The figure for excess winter deaths is defined by the Office for National Statistics as the difference between the number of deaths during the four winter months and the average number of deaths during the preceding autumn and the following summer. In the Conservative party manifesto for the 2010 election, these figures were described as “a national disgrace”, and that is absolutely the correct description. This is nothing short of a national catastrophe that affects every region of the United Kingdom. The motion before the House therefore calls for the Chancellor to take
	“urgent steps to ease the burden on pensioner households”
	right across the United Kingdom.
	I want to refer particularly to the situation in our own area of Northern Ireland as an example of the dire circumstances facing many of our senior citizens living in cold houses.

Denis MacShane: I shall certainly support the right hon. Gentleman in the Lobby tonight. Surely, however, the problem is poor pensioner households. The difficulty with the winter fuel allowance is that everybody over 60 or 65 gets it, irrespective of their means, and as a result it has become a generalised payment that helps the rich but does not give enough to the poor.

Nigel Dodds: I understand that argument entirely. Indeed, the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change pointed to it in its report back in 2010, and I will come on to deal with the targeting of resources and tackling fuel poverty. As for cold weather payments, there is clear evidence that many pensioners do not claim all the
	benefits to which they are entitled. The benefit of having a universal system is that it reaches all those who need it. I will deal with the issue that the right hon. Gentleman has highlighted in more detail later.

Robert Smith: In some of the trials aimed at trying to reduce fuel poverty in other parts of the United Kingdom, there has been a conscious drive to improve benefit take-up, and that has made a huge difference to people’s income, far more than the winter fuel payment would make.

Nigel Dodds: It is a combination of all these factors. The winter fuel payment does play an important role, as the Government and the Minister have acknowledged. The Government made it very clear in the coalition agreement that they would maintain the payment. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that benefit take-up is extremely important, and we should all be doing more to encourage it. Back in Northern Ireland, the Executive have also taken steps to try to encourage benefit take-up. The winter fuel payment plays an important role in tackling this issue.

Tessa Munt: Does the right hon. Gentleman support the scheme that was proposed initially by Somerset Community Foundation whereby the winter fuel payment, because it is a universal allowance, could be distributed through community foundations, with the assistance of the Department for Work and Pensions, so that people who are less fortunate and less able to heat their homes could take some or all of the winter fuel payment that is given by those who are a little wealthier ?

Nigel Dodds: There has been a debate on that very issue over the past few days. I commend those who decide that because they do not need the winter fuel payment themselves, they wish to distribute it to those more in need. I welcome the initiative that the hon. Lady mentions.

Michael Weir: rose—

Nigel Dodds: Let me press ahead and make a little progress, and I will take more interventions in a short while.
	I want to refer to the situation in Northern Ireland. Last winter, we had the coldest December in 100 years. In 2009-10, there were almost 1,000 excess winter deaths, 80% of which were of people aged 65 or over. On average, we get 910 such deaths per year, and that figure compares with 590 in 2001-02, so there has been a massive increase over that period. We have to understand that in addition to the stark figures on mortalities, for every death from cold there are eight hospital admissions and more than 100 visits to general practitioners and health centres. This is suffering on a vast scale.
	The recent interim report from the Government’s independent review of fuel poverty, conducted by John Hills, states:
	“Living in cold homes has a series of effects on illness and mental health.”
	I will not go into all the repercussions of cold weather and of living in cold and damp housing on people’s mental and physical health. The interim report outlines those very clearly.
	The winter fuel payment was introduced in January 1998 as a tax-free annual payment. Its purpose was and is to alleviate fuel poverty by giving specific help to encourage older people to spend more on heating during the winter. What is happening this year? For the past three years, the winter fuel payment has been £250 for those aged 60 and over, and £400 for those aged 80 and over. Despite spiralling fuel prices—we had a debate only a couple of weeks ago in this House on the crisis in the energy sector—and despite the extremely cold recent winters and the forecasts of a very cold winter to come, in 2011-12 the payment for pensioners aged 60 and over has been reduced by 20% to £200, and the payment for those aged 80 and over has been cut by a quarter to £300. That does not affect just a small group of people; it affects more than 9 million households and about 13 million people throughout the United Kingdom. Some 12.7 million of those people are in Great Britain and some 317,000 are in Northern Ireland.
	As a result of the changes, the expenditure on winter fuel payments will fall from approximately £2.75 billion in 2010-11 to some £2.136 billion in 2011-12. That is a substantial monetary saving for the Treasury, but at what cost? That is the question that many people are asking. People in charities or third sector organisations who deal with older people’s issues are making it clear that they fear that this cut, which directly hits the pockets and incomes of pensioner households throughout the United Kingdom, will result in more illness, more disease and more deaths.

Sarah Newton: The right hon. Gentleman is making a very moving case. I am sure that there is not anybody in this Parliament who is not concerned about excess winter deaths and this nation’s terrible legacy of not tackling fuel poverty among the poorest and most vulnerable. In his analysis for this debate, has he looked at the wide range of other measures that the Government have put in place to tackle the issue this winter and to make more lasting, wholesale changes in winters to come?

Nigel Dodds: Interventions have an uncanny knack of happening at the precise moment when one is coming on to deal with the very issue that they raise. I will deal with the issue that the hon. Lady has raised. Of course there are other measures aimed at dealing with fuel poverty and coldness-related illness among elderly people. There are the cold weather payments, to which I referred, which some may argue are more specifically targeted. I will come on to that in a moment.
	There is also the warm home discount. Recently, the Northern Ireland Assembly unanimously passed an appeal to the Government to think again on this issue, and when the Minister replied he referred to, among other things, the warm home discount scheme. However, the scheme applies only in Great Britain, because the legislation did not apply to Northern Ireland. Half a million pensioners benefit from that scheme in Great Britain, but pensioners in Northern Ireland do not. I am sure that the Minister will address that point.
	There are also other measures. On the practical health side, there is the flu vaccination scheme. Northern Ireland has its own warm homes scheme, which I am glad to say was introduced under devolution by a Democratic Unionist party Minister. It has helped 80,000 households and has
	received widespread support in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland also has a boiler replacement scheme and the social protection fund, which the Executive have brought forward. I understand that discussions are under way to address the specific issue of fuel poverty and the elderly in Northern Ireland. So yes, there are a range of measures, and we need to keep investing in such things as energy efficiency and home insulation to prevent fuel poverty in the long term.

Nicola Blackwood: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Nigel Dodds: In a moment.
	However, I say to the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) and the House that those other measures do not mean that we can cut the winter fuel payment to such a massive extent. It goes directly to our senior citizens and is an important tool. It is not the only tool—it goes only to senior citizens but, as I have said, they are disproportionately affected—but it is an invaluable tool in helping to tackle fuel poverty among the elderly.

George Hollingbery: Looking at the standard Library note on the issue, I am interested to see that the standard payment for the winter fuel allowance has been £200 and £300 since 2003, supplemented by one-off extra payments in the past three years, so the standard rate has remained the same. The right hon. Gentleman may also have noticed that in 2006-07 and 2007-08, that one-off payment was withdrawn and the amount paid was the standard payment of £200 and £300. Does he have any data about the increase in deaths in that period and whether there was a real effect of that money being withdrawn?

Nigel Dodds: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point about the standard rate, and of course when the Chancellor made his announcement about the winter fuel allowance earlier this year he did not dwell on it in any great detail. In fact, he passed over the issue almost completely, and we found out about it only in the small print. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s argument, but it beggars belief that whereas it was thought okay to have the increase in each of the last three years, the Chancellor and the Government have chosen this year to cut the extra payments for our senior citizens, despite the anxiety that was expressed throughout the House just a few weeks ago about extremely high and rising energy prices across the country.
	When I raised the matter with the Prime Minister on 2 November, he said:
	“we have kept the plans that were set out by the previous Government and I think that is the right thing to do.”—[Official Report, 2 November 2011; Vol. 534, c. 918.]
	I have listened to the Prime Minister and Ministers speak many times about their spending plans and what the previous Government did, but I do not think I have often heard them say that. On virtually every occasion they have said that the previous Government’s plans were leading to economic disaster, yet on this issue, and only on this issue, they pray in aid the fact that the previous Government were, they say, going to cut the
	allowance, and that it is therefore the right thing to do. Frankly, that is not good enough. I leave it to the Opposition to outline what their position was.
	The Government have decided to maintain health spending at a certain level, saying that it needs to be ring-fenced. They have said that international aid spending needs to be protected, and that we needed to spend money to intervene in Libya. I have no difficulty with any of those things—I support them—but now the Government say that it is right to cut payments to our senior citizens, at a time when they are suffering from extreme cold and high and rising energy prices, because that was what the previous Government had planned. That is a shabby argument, and not one that bears any kind of scrutiny. The Government should stand on their own two feet, argue their case for themselves and justify it to the House and the country.
	I want to pay tribute to groups such as Age NI for their work in Northern Ireland, and to Age Sector Platform, which has been very busy in recent months running a significant campaign called Fight the Winter Fuel Cut. Recently, a group from Northern Ireland led by Margaret Galloway, Michael Monaghan and Nixon Armstrong travelled to Westminster and presented the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), with a petition. Hundreds of people are signing that petition every day.

Lady Hermon: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of Northern Ireland, will he reflect on the fact that, for the first time, a commissioner for older people—and a very good one in Claire Keatinge, who was formerly the director of the Alzheimer’s Society—has been appointed? Does he see a role for the commissioner on the issue of winter fuel payments? How could she influence the Government to do the right thing? We hear a lot of criticism of human rights in the House, but there is a guarantee that no one in the UK should experience degrading treatment. For older people, the Government’s policy seems like degrading treatment. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree?

Nigel Dodds: I certainly do agree with the hon. Lady, who rightly points to the important step taken by the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive of appointing a commissioner for older people, which follows the appointment in Wales of someone who fulfils the same kind of role. I have no doubt that the commissioner, who I agree is an excellent appointment, will be active in putting to Northern Ireland Executive Ministers the case for our older people. As I outlined earlier, a number of things are currently being undertaken by the Executive, and they are considering others, to help our older people. However, what the hon. Lady says on winter fuel payments, which affects the entire country, and which is for decision and debate in this House, should carry some considerable weight.
	On whether the allowance is poorly targeted and whether it is the appropriate way in which to deal with fuel poverty—the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) mentioned this—the argument against the universal payment principle overlooks the fact that many of those entitled to, for instance, pension credit, do not receive it, for a variety of reasons. In Northern Ireland, somewhere in the region of £60 million is not claimed by those who are entitled to pension credit.
	Those people are hit with a double whammy: they do not get pension credit or cold weather payments, because the latter go only to those who claim the former. The only way to ensure that the most vulnerable people get financial help is to keep the universal payment. I believe that there is no dispute between the Government and those who agree with me, because the Conservative party pledged in its manifesto that the allowance would be kept.

Michael McCann: The right hon. Gentleman makes a potent argument, but does he share my concern that cold weather payments are triggered by monitoring equipment in only certain parts of the country? My area shares the same climate characteristics as his, and my constituents regularly lose out, which is why the universality of the wider payment is a much better system.

Nigel Dodds: The hon. Gentleman rightly points to one of the major deficiencies of cold weather payments, which has also been raised by DUP Members.

David Hamilton: Another point is that, currently, cold weather payments are not taxed—they go directly to the person and the payments cover everyone. If the money is put through in different ways, it could be taxed and off-takes would come into operation. That would affect not just those 13 million people, because the families of many old-age pensioners supplement their parents' incomes to make sure they are okay.

Nigel Dodds: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point.
	The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that people are 14 times more likely to spend the winter fuel allowance on fuel than they would be if their incomes were increased in other ways. If an allowance is given specifically to spend on fuel, people are more likely to spend it on fuel; they would be less likely spend an allowance on fuel if it was not designated as a fuel poverty measure. There are strong arguments—for reasons that hon. Members and I have outlined—for retaining the universal payment of a winter fuel payment at current levels, and for indexing payments to the rising cost of energy. Some have argued that at a time of pressing demands on the Treasury and given the state of the economy, that would be a luxury we can ill afford. As I have indicated, money has been found for the priorities that the Government have deemed essential: the protection of international aid budgets, taking a penny off fuel duty, ring-fencing NHS budgets and so on. It is vital, however, that we also prioritise saving the lives of our senior citizens in times of very cold weather.
	The chief medical officer has said that the annual cost to the NHS of treating winter-related diseases resulting from cold private housing is estimated at about £860 million, but that does not include additional spending by social services, economic loss through days off sick, and so on, which means that the total cost to the NHS and the country as a whole is unknown. However, we do know that every £1 invested in keeping homes warm saves the NHS 42p in health costs, so again this money would be well spent, and it could save the NHS more money in the long term.
	Levels of fuel poverty in this country are staggering: in England, 18% of households are in fuel poverty; in Wales, it is 26%; in Scotland, it is 33%; and in Northern Ireland, it is 44%. It is right across the board. That equates to 302,000 households in Northern Ireland alone, 75,000 of which are in extreme fuel poverty, which means that they spend 20% or more of their income on fuel. Furthermore, almost half of all fuel-poor households in the country are headed by over-65s, so clearly fuel poverty disproportionately affects the elderly to a staggering degree.
	Yet the situation will only get worse. I have highlighted the rising cost of fuel. In the past five years to October 2011, the retail price of gas in the UK rose by 52%, and the price of oil rose by 86%. In Northern Ireland, the situation is much worse. The price of home heating oil, which is a product that we depend on, has risen by 63% in the past two years and by 150% since 2003. Almost 70% of homes in Northern Ireland depend on it for their primary source of heating—that figure is 82% in rural areas—yet the price of oil has risen beyond anyone’s imagination.

Michael Weir: The situation is similar in rural Scotland. I have previously suggested—I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman agrees with this proposal—that the Government make the fuel allowance available earlier in the year to those who rely on home heating oil, when price and demand are lower, allowing them to fill up before the winter hits and the price tends to rocket.

Nigel Dodds: Yes, the hon. Gentleman raises an important point about those who depend on home heating oil. These are one-off payments of about £600 for 900 litres of oil—it is a lump-sum payment—so it would be extremely helpful to people to have that money in their hands when they were able to buy more oil at a lower price. He makes an extremely good point.
	The picture is stark: we have much higher energy costs; there are considerable pressures on pensioner household incomes owing to lower savings returns; and increases in VAT are hitting everybody hard, but hitting pensioners particularly hard. Furthermore, pensioners tend to be on fixed-retirement incomes, and we know that, according to a recent report, the cost of living has risen by one fifth for older people over the past four years, compared with 14% for the population as a whole.
	At the last election, the parties made a number of pledges. On pensioners, the Conservative party described the number of excess winter deaths as a national disgrace, and it said:
	“we want to set the record straight. Labour are sending cynical and deceptive leaflets to pensioners’ homes saying we would cut their benefits. This is an outright lie, and here it is in black and white: we will protect pensioners’ benefits and concessions, and this includes: the Pension Credit; the Winter Fuel Allowance; free bus passes; and, free TV licences.”
	I defy anybody out there in the public to interpret that statement as anything other than a pledge not only to maintain the existence of the winter fuel allowance, so that it continued to be paid as a benefit, but to maintain it at the same rate at which people were receiving it when the election was called. What other interpretation can we put on those words?
	The Liberal Democrats said in their manifesto before the last election that they would reform winter fuel payments, extending them to all severely disabled people, and that this would be paid for by delaying age-related winter fuel payments until people reached 65. However, the Minister, who is in his place, said earlier this month:
	“There are no plans to extend provision under the winter fuel payment scheme.”—[Official Report, 3 November 2011; Vol. 534, c. 719W.]
	The coalition programme for government stated:
	“We will protect key benefits for older people such as the winter fuel allowance,”
	and so on. Then there is the argument about the Labour party’s position and what Labour was proposing—or not proposing—to do had it remained in office.
	I point to those pledges for this reason. People say today that politicians, Parliament and this House are disconnected from ordinary people. People are losing faith in politics; and is it any wonder, when they read those clear statements and are led to believe one thing, but then, as soon as the election takes place and the same politicians come to office, they turn round and do something entirely different? Their argument in doing so is: “Well, we’re only doing what the previous Government said they would do.” When people can so cynically disregard the pledges that they make on such an important issue, that is another reason for the disconnect between politicians and the public out there.

Robert Smith: I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s argument, but does he think that one reason for the disconnect is perhaps also the previous Government’s mistaken decision to raise the rate to a level that they did not think they could afford to maintain in the long term? That was where the disconnect started.

Nigel Dodds: I have not heard it said that the level of the payments made over the last three years was unsustainable. I have never heard anybody make that argument.
	Let us be fair: the Government have made choices. They have decided, because of the economic situation and the deficit, to cut expenditure in certain areas. In other areas, they have decided to maintain or increase spending. That is the choice of the Government and the majority of the Members of this House; but do not let anyone pretend that the Government had no choice about winter fuel payments or that they had to do what they did. They did not have to do it: they chose to pick this area for cuts and not others. That is a reprehensible choice—a choice that is not justified either economically or morally. At a time of so many excess winter deaths among our older population, it is appalling that cuts should be aimed at that sector of our population.

George Hollingbery: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Nigel Dodds: I am pressing to a conclusion now. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to catch Mr Speaker’s eye in order to speak, as other Members will want to.
	The winter fuel payment should be restored to the amount that was paid over the past three years. Indeed, I would go further and say that future payments should
	be indexed to reflect rising energy prices. After all, when the winter fuel payment was initially introduced, it paid over half the cost of an older person’s fuel bill, whereas the current level is nowhere near high enough to meet those bills. Our attitude to this issue goes a long way towards illustrating our attitude to the treatment of our older people throughout the country. I hope that the whole House will join me and my right hon. and hon. Friends in supporting the motion this evening, and I commend it to the House.

Steve Webb: May I first thank the Democratic Unionists for bringing this subject for debate before the House? It is an important and significant issue. As we have heard from the contribution of the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), particular aspects of the issue have particular resonance in Northern Ireland. I shall make some reference to the specific circumstances of Northern Ireland, but it is worth setting the UK-wide context for the decisions taken about the level of the winter fuel payment and the cold weather payment. The right hon. Gentleman is correct that the Government had choices to make, and they made a choice about the cold weather payment, but I do not know whether he is aware that that choice was a significant one—one that I believe has proved to be correct.
	The backdrop was as my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) described it a few moments ago. Initially, the winter fuel payment was only for people on means-tested benefits, or a higher rate went to those eligible for means-tested benefits, but eventually, some years ago, it got up to its full universal rate of £200 and it stayed at that level year after year; it was not indexed. Then we reached two years before a general election when the public finances were looking good and the then Chancellor decided to make a one-off increase to £250 and £400. As I say, when it was announced, it was announced as a one-off. Then we reached the year before the general election and the Government of the day thought that cutting the winter fuel payment would look bad so near to the election, so they announced a further one-off increase to £250 and £400. They stressed again that it was a one-off.
	Then we reach the March Budget of 2010, and it became apparent in March that the Government would have to announce the rate for winter 2010. Funnily enough, six weeks before a general election did not seem like the right time to reverse a one-off increase, so a further one-off increase was announced again for the winter of 2010. We know it was a one-off increase because the public spending plans of the previous Government were published into the new Parliament. We thus know that the plans we inherited were to cut the winter fuel payment back to its core level of £200 for the winter we are now going into and for succeeding winters. That was the baseline against which we made our decisions.

Gregory Campbell: The Minister is outlining what happened under the previous Government and stressing that the single or “one-off” payment as he has described it on several
	occasions was maintained just before an election. Given that my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) alluded to the Government’s statement that they would keep faith with the previous Government and in conjunction with what the Minister has just said, does it mean that in three years’ time he will reinstate the cold weather payment?

Steve Webb: Well, obviously, cynicism would be well beyond this Government. The rates of public spending are published through a comprehensive spending review period and for the rest of this period the figure we inherited was £200. That, as I say, was our baseline.
	Another strange thing that went on was to do with the cold weather payment. That is the money paid when it is freezing cold to the poorest and most vulnerable people—the poorest pensioners and the poorest disabled people. Temporarily, pre-election, that was increased from the regular £8.50 to £25 a week. Temporarily, too, for the year after the election, as announced before the election, it was to be maintained at £25 a week. You will not be surprised to learn, Mr Speaker, that beyond that, it was planned to be slashed back to the £8.50 a week level. In other words, had we done nothing and taken no action, the winter fuel payment would have reverted to its £200 level and the cold weather payment paid to the most vulnerable when it is most cold would have reverted to £8.50 a week.
	Let me remind Members that that was the baseline from which we were trying to find something in the order of £70 billion to £80 billion-worth of savings, so the question was not whether we should cut the winter fuel payment or the cold weather payment, but whether we could find the money to reverse the planned cuts, and thus have to find still further cuts from across the budget.
	I agree with the right hon. Member for Belfast North on one point—that Governments have to make choices about priorities. He listed some of the priorities of this Government: ring-fencing the NHS, for example, about which I suspect the pensioners of Northern Ireland will be glad. He also mentioned the penny on petrol duty. I was not aware that it was his policy that we should not have reversed that, but I am happy to be corrected.

Nigel Dodds: I am sure that the Minister was listening when I said that I supported those priorities. My point was that the Government had decided to increase or maintain spending in certain areas but to target cuts on other areas, and I wanted to know why they had targeted our senior citizens.

Steve Webb: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for confirming that the measures that he listed were measures that he supports. I had assumed that, having begun by telling the House that we should spend an extra £600 million on something, he would in the course of his speech identify something on which we should spend £600 million less. Given that he spoke for 30-odd minutes, I may have missed it.

Nigel Dodds: I could have taken much more time—indeed, I had a page devoted to areas that we could cut—but I considered it to be in the interests of the debate to leave time for others to speak. I am sure that my colleagues will make similar points, but may I begin by suggesting that the Minister reverse his attachment to Europe and
	save the £400 million that is going to the External Action Service, along with all the other money that is being wasted? And what about the £80 million that he wasted on the alternative vote referendum, which could have gone towards helping older people rather than being wasted on a trivial political exercise?

Steve Webb: It is intriguing that, in presenting a 30-minute explanation of why we should spend a further £600 million, the right hon. Gentleman should remove the bit about where the money should come from, which seems to me to be fairly central to the debate.
	Faced with that baseline of a proposed reversion to a £200 winter fuel payment and an £8.50 cold weather payment, we could simply have gone ahead with the previous plans, and found our £70 billion to £80 billion on top of that. However, we took the view—as does the right hon. Gentleman—that fuel poverty matters, and we therefore found the money that would enable us to reverse the planned cut in the cold weather payment. I believe that ours was the right priority. If we are concerned about the most vulnerable when it is most cold in the coldest of winters, we should bear in mind that an increase from £8.50 to £25 gives people the confidence to turn up their heating when it is bitterly cold. The system even allows cold weather payments to be triggered by a forecast. It need not actually have been freezing cold; we merely have to expect it to be freezing cold.
	Last winter in Northern Ireland, we made 672,000 cold weather payments at a cost of £16.8 million. Had we not reversed the earlier decision, the value of those payments would have fallen by about two thirds. Our decision put about £10 million into the hands of the poorest pensioners and disabled people in Northern Ireland during a bitterly cold winter, and I am proud that we made it.

Michael McCann: Many constituents throughout the country, including mine, will not be able to gain access to cold weather payments because the necessary monitoring equipment is not there.

Steve Webb: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. A number of Members in all parts of the House contact me about cold weather payments for which I am responsible. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid), for example, wrote to me saying that he did not think that the cold weather stations in his constituency matched the actual pattern of cold weather.
	I have been very impressed by the work of my officials, who take seriously every representation received about cold weather stations. We change them every year in response to such representations. There will be stations in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, but if he thinks that they are in the wrong place or measuring the wrong data, I can tell him that we work very closely with the Met Office, and respond thoroughly and carefully to all submissions. As far as I am aware, I have not received a submission from the hon. Gentleman, but I apologise if he has already contacted me. If he has not, I encourage him to do so.

Michael McCann: The issue has been raised both by me and by my predecessor. My nearest cold weather station is Bishopton. As anyone from Scotland will know, East Kilbride is one of the coldest places in the country
	during the winter. However, there is no monitoring equipment, although South Lanarkshire council has monitoring equipment in the constituency to ensure that gritting takes place. I should be grateful if the matter could be looked into.

Steve Webb: I am happy to do that. It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman would be kind enough to give me as much detail as possible in writing. In general, as I have said, I have been impressed by how responsive the system is.

Robert Smith: rose—

Steve Webb: I will give way in a moment. There is a recognition that, wherever we put the cold weather stations to try to capture some of the variation in climate, such as the seven stations that serve Northern Ireland—

Gregory Campbell: rose—

Steve Webb: I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) first and then to the hon. Gentleman. No matter where we put the cold weather stations, somebody, somewhere says, “Hang on a minute, it is in the wrong side of the postcode” and so on. We keep these things under constant review because we want the system to work.

Robert Smith: I wish to reinforce the point that the Minister has made. A submission was made that there should be a measuring station at Aboyne in my constituency and the Minister decided that there will be, which means that people living in the colder inland part of the constituency no longer have to rely on measurements taken in a coastal community.

Steve Webb: Indeed. I feel that I am acquiring an encyclopaedic knowledge of the remoter parts of Scotland through this role, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding the House that we listen to representations that are made and take them seriously.

Gregory Campbell: Just two weeks ago, the Northern Ireland Assembly was informed of a change in my constituency, whereby the existing station in Ballykelly, which is a few miles inland, is to be replaced by a new station in Magilligan, which is right on the coast. The Minister will be aware that it is inevitable that coastal stations will be a degree or two warmer than those inland, so 3,500 people might or might not get a cold weather payment on the basis of a reading from a slightly warmer cold weather station.

Steve Webb: As I said a moment ago, we work closely with the Met Office on these matters. I do not claim expertise on meteorological matters, but the Met Office does. Where changes are made to metering stations it is always with a view to being more accurate, rather than less. There is certainly no attempt made to move them to where the sun shines. We will examine that issue this winter. If the hon. Gentleman’s impression from this winter is that that change is causing problems, I will be happy to hear from him.

Mark Durkan: The Minister told us that by maintaining the cold weather payment of the previous year this Government had given an additional £10 million to pensioners in Northern Ireland. Will he tell us how much money he is denying to pensioners in Northern Ireland by refusing to maintain the level of the winter fuel allowance? Has he done the same calculation?

Steve Webb: What we have done is preserve the amount that was scheduled to be spent in Northern Ireland exactly as planned. Clearly, £50 a head in Northern Ireland is probably slightly more than the figure for the cold weather payment. I did some mental arithmetic while the right hon. Member for Belfast North was speaking and I suspect that that figure is slightly larger. The key choice was between doing nothing—taking our baseline and taking £70 billion or £80 billion out—and trying to reverse at least one of the cuts. I think that the right thing to do was address the cold weather payment.
	Let me give a slightly cheeky example of why that was our priority. I checked the dates of birth of the hon. Members from Northern Ireland and found that at least one of them would, in principle, qualify for a winter fuel payment—I am not going to name names. [Hon. Members: “Go on.”] I am not even going to look in the direction of the person I am talking about.

William McCrea: I hoped to catch your eye, Mr Speaker, and at the commencement of my speech I was going to make it very clear that I qualify for the winter fuel payment. When I have received it, I have always given it to a disabled family who do not get that allowance. I am happy even to give the names of the people who receive it.

Steve Webb: That is entirely the response that I expected. The point is that not everyone would perhaps respond in quite that way. Given the choice between spending the money on at least some folk gracious and generous enough to give it away, or on people who self-evidently desperately need it because they are on a low income or are disabled and it is freezing cold, the priority at a time when money is tight is obvious. This is one decision that I would defend.

Michael Weir: Will the Minister address the point? Whether he is saving money on one or the other, he has just admitted that the figure spent in Northern Ireland is lower than it would have been overall. However, the cost of energy has rocketed in the past year or two, so every pensioner in Northern Ireland or in any other place in the United Kingdom is paying more for their energy and is suffering through this system. Would it not be better to put some money in to ease that suffering?

Steve Webb: Absolutely, and I shall come on to the whole subject of the fuel poverty strategy that we have adopted. I suspect, as my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery) suggested in an intervention, that the correlation between the rate of the winter fuel payment and the depth and impact of fuel poverty is incredibly weak, if it is there at all. In other words, we have seen the winter fuel payment go up and go down, yet if that was plotted against the terrible problem of excess winter deaths or fuel poverty, I suspect there would be no correlation at all. When money is tight, we should be prioritising how we spend it so that it will do the most good.
	As the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir) rightly says, fuel bills have shot up. Surely the priority should be stopping people paying a fortune for their fuel when half the heat goes out through poorly insulted walls, windows and lofts. Every year, it is tempting to say that this winter we should put cash into people’s hands because it is cold. Of course that is true, but if we always put off the hard work of insulation, energy efficiency and so on, the situation will be the same the next winter and the one after that. Money spent on energy efficiency will save pensioners and others money every winter, rather than our giving them cash one year, only for the heat to go out through poorly insulated roofs and windows.

Jim Cunningham: The Minister has outlined one facet of the problem, but one of the major facets has not been touched on today, although it has been mentioned in Adjournment debates in Westminster Hall. We really need to look at the cartels among the oil companies and to ask what discussions the Government have had with the oil companies. Equally, the increase in VAT is having an impact.

Steve Webb: Obviously, the VAT increase does not affect fuel prices directly as they are on a reduced rate, but the hon. Gentleman is right that competition in the energy sector is a key concern of the Government, whether that is in gas, electricity or oil. Our colleagues at the Department of Energy and Climate Change are in regular and close contact with the competition authorities, but one thing the Government are doing is ensuring that people are aware of their ability to switch and get much better tariffs—that is particularly the case with electricity and gas. Clearly, we can do things for the long term, such as sort out the housing stock, but we can also do things for the short term, such as ensure that people get the best price available. There is huge potential to do a lot more that does not necessarily involve hundreds of millions of pounds of Government spending but would benefit people substantially.

Sarah Newton: Does my hon. Friend agree that the recently commissioned and reported Office of Fair Trading document that specifically, at the Minister’s request, investigated off-grid energy competition was able to recommend a series of actions to improve the market for heating oil this winter, avoiding the terrible problems we experienced last winter? The OFT has now gone on to look at liquefied petroleum gas. The Ministers in DECC are doing everything they can to ensure that the off-grid energy markets are fully functioning.

Steve Webb: My hon. Friend is quite right. In Northern Ireland, dependence on heating oil is substantially greater than it is on the mainland and even in a semi-rural constituency such as my own, oil prices, oil supply and so on are big issues. I am grateful for her kind words about our ministerial colleagues as these are important matters.
	Let me go back to the issue of fuel poverty. Clearly, it has a number of components and one is income. We focused on a change from last year’s rate to this year’s of less than £1 a week in the winter fuel payment and that is what we are talking about today. Instead, we have taken the basic state pension, which for 30 years has been declining relative to wages, and put a triple lock on
	it so that every year from now on, pensioners in Great Britain and Northern Ireland will see their pensions rise by the highest number of inflation measured by the consumer prices index, earnings and 2.5%. We are in a strange period in which inflation is greater than earnings, but in most years, earnings have grown faster. That will mean that as we return to more normal times, pensioners will enjoy above inflation standard of living increases year after year.
	The cost of that commitment—I hope that the Chancellor is not listening at this point—will add a total of £45 billion to the amount we spend on pensions by the mid-2020s, which gives a sense of the magnitude of what we have announced. That is rather invisible at the moment, because prices are higher than earnings. When I signed the legislation into law last year, I expected bells to peal and for there to be confetti on the floor and so on. That has not quite happened yet, because people have not seen the impact. In the longer term, it will give a sustained boost to the real incomes of pensioners in Northern Ireland and Great Britain.

Nigel Dodds: The Minister raises the issue of the triple lock. Previously, in the autumn statement the Chancellor has always announced the increase in line with the September rate of inflation, which would mean a 5.2% increase. Does the Minister expect the Chancellor to do the same this year, and would he rebuke the Chancellor if he were to take an annual inflation figure? Given what he has said, I take it that he is very much in favour of the former.

Steve Webb: The Chancellor was asked this very question at Treasury questions recently, and he confirmed, as is entirely in line with my view, that the triple lock is something of which we are proud. I am sure that we will be just as proud next Tuesday when he announces his verdict.
	This is not just about the basic state pension: it is also about pension credit. As has rightly been pointed out, we need to make sure that pension credit take-up is maximised and we already do many things in that regard. Some people may not know that they can ring an 0800 number—a freephone number—to claim pension credit. They might think there is a long and complicated form to fill out, but in fact they can claim it over the phone and can also claim housing benefit and council tax benefit at the same time. We also undertake a lot of activity to engage with people who might be eligible. For example, we mention pension credit to people when they claim the state pension or when they report a change in their circumstances such as a bereavement. We also have a visiting service so that if people are not online or perhaps are not able to get out, DWP and local authority staff go out to their home and fill in forms with them in their front room.
	As a Department, we are doing quite a lot to encourage take-up, but I am aware that the Democratic Unionist party manifesto mentioned trying to pay pension credit automatically. We have been piloting that in Great Britain and I can update the House on that exercise. We took a random sample of about 2,000 customers who were not receiving pension credit but whom we thought, based on what we knew about them, appeared to be entitled to it. For 12 weeks, we paid them the money anyway without their having to make a claim and then
	we contacted them and said, “By the way, we’ve just given you some free money. This is what we think you would get on pension credit—would you like to make a claim for it?”
	The delivery phase of that study ran from November 2010 to March 2011 and an evaluation is now under way, but I can update the House on the early findings from that research. We found that by August, after the process had finished, a percentage of those involved in the study had successfully claimed pension credit. I am going to ask Members to think to themselves what percentage I am about to say, assuming that no one has read what we published. So, of the 2,000 people to whom we gave pension credit because we thought they were entitled to it, what percentage do hon. Members think then successfully claimed it? I shall not do a straw poll at this point. The answer is just 9%, which is a very low figure. Given that 3% of those in the control sample claimed, if we had done nothing we would have had 3% claiming anyway, whereas we had 9%.
	We found that those who did go on to claim pension credit did so because the study had raised their awareness of the benefit and their potential eligibility for it, as one might expect. We talked to some of those who did not claim and found that some of them retained the view that they were not entitled to it even though we had contacted them and given them the money. Some felt that they did not need it, which is fair enough, some did not claim because of health issues, others forgot and some did not quite understand what was going on. It was a complex process, and we will publish a rigorous evaluation of it. It would be great if we could spot all the folk who are not taking pension credit and get the money to them automatically, but the early indications are that that will not be the case and that this approach is not a silver bullet that will enable us to deliver the money automatically. However, we will see what lessons we can learn from the pilot and I shall be happy to update the House on that a bit nearer the time.

Lady Hermon: May I establish when the Minister last visited Northern Ireland? The right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) gave the statistic in his opening remarks that 75,000 homes in Northern Ireland are in extreme—that is the word he used—fuel poverty. With the greatest respect to the Minister—and I do have the greatest respect for him—I would like him to visit Northern Ireland and come to some of those homes. It is absolutely degrading for an elderly person to have to eliminate their television because they cannot afford a television licence, or to have to choose between food and fuel. This is a really serious problem in Northern Ireland.

Steve Webb: I do not doubt for a second the point that the hon. Lady, for whom I have a great deal of respect, makes. Obviously, as a GB Minister, I am responsible for these matters in Great Britain. Fuel poverty is a devolved matter, although my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who will respond to the debate, was in Northern Ireland last week. Yesterday I spoke to the Northern Ireland Minister for Social Development to discuss with him these issues as they affect Northern Ireland. He was keen to stress some of the measures that the Executive are taking—for example, the double glazing of social housing.
	That comes back to the point I was making, which was that this is partly about 98p a week on the winter fuel payment, which is what we are discussing, but far more about stopping people having highly energy-inefficient homes and giving them a decent, dignified standard of living. If hon. Members think about the difference that we are going to make through the triple lock on the basic pension, it swamps the 98p that we are talking about today and will make a real impact on the living standard of pensioners over decades to come.

Nicola Blackwood: On energy efficiency and insulation, proposals have come from the Government, including the green deal. My concern relates to my hon. Friend’s comments about pension credit and uptake by the most vulnerable groups. Have any discussions taken place with the Department of Energy and Climate Change about how to improve uptake by those groups, who would benefit most from the proposals?

Steve Webb: My hon. Friend raises the important issue of take-up. Clearly, benefits such as cold weather payments and the warm home discount, which is the £120 off fuel bills in Great Britain, as I mentioned in the letter that I sent, are contingent on receiving an income-related benefit. That is a challenge that we always face. We want to target those who are most vulnerable, but if some of those who are vulnerable miss out on the passported benefits, how do we get that money through without spending it on everyone, resulting in it being spread much more thinly? That is a permanent trade-off and why we are looking at ways of improving the take-up of these benefits and having a mixed strategy—a mix of a universal winter fuel payment that goes to everyone regardless of whether they claim, and targeted help for those most in need.
	As a Department we are working with organisations such as Age UK to try to make sure that pension credit materials are provided to them. Those organisations have responded positively to make sure that the literature we provide is easy to understand and reaches the people who need it. I entirely take my hon. Friend’s point that there will always be gaps, and we need to address that. My view in the long run is that if we can have state pension reform that guarantees a state pension above the basic means test, that will go a long way to addressing some of these issues, but perhaps that is for another day.
	I do not want to go on too long but I will mention, briefly, the warm home discount. This is important because it is the subject of negotiation between the Government and the big six energy companies in Great Britain that will give £120 off the electricity bills of 600,000 of the poorest pensioners. That will make a real contribution. We do it through electricity bills because pretty much everybody has an electricity bill, not because we think the price of electricity has necessarily gone up more, but it does not apply in Northern Ireland.
	There is an interesting question about the negotiations or discussions between the Northern Ireland Executive and Power NI, for example, about whether the Northern Ireland providers could be asked to do the same sort of thing. If the big six are doing it in Great Britain, I cannot immediately see why the same should not benefit pensioners in Northern Ireland. Perhaps right hon. and hon. Members could take that back and challenge their own power suppliers to do more.
	Clearly, we need to make people aware not just of the means-tested benefits they can get, but of the help with insulation, cavity walls and so on. Further in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood), we as a Government are sending letters to about 4 million of the most vulnerable energy customers, letting them know that they have access to heavily discounted insulation for their lofts and cavity walls. Even when we write directly to people, we do not always get the results that we want, but we are aiming to target people directly.

Jim Shannon: Is the Minister aware that 43% of those over 75 years of age live in unfit houses? Is that not a group that he should target specifically?

Steve Webb: Perhaps I was not explaining myself clearly. There is a whole raft of things that we are doing precisely because low-income households cannot afford the large capital costs of insulation. There is the green deal, the letters that we are sending about subsidised insulation, cavity wall insulation and so on, and the measures that we require the energy companies to take under the carbon emissions reduction target, the CERT scheme. There is a whole raft of things that we are doing, precisely because of the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, which subsidises insulation. It is perhaps a misnomer to talk about that as being long term. Someone’s house can be insulated tomorrow, which will mean savings on their heating bills. It will take a long time to work through the whole housing stock, but that has an immediate and beneficial impact on people today. Perhaps “long term” was not quite the right phrase.

Ian Paisley Jnr: rose—

Steve Webb: Will the hon. Gentleman forgive me? I know that he is responding to the debate, so he will have the chance to make the points that he wants to make shortly.
	I entirely accept that the decision about whether to carry on with Labour’s planned cuts in the winter fuel payment and cold weather payment was a difficult one. We could have gone ahead with both those cuts, which would still have left us having to find £70 billion to £80 billion of deficit reduction, but we took the view that we should target those most in need through the cold weather payment scheme. I am proud that we reversed that cut; that we found the money to pay the large number of cold weather payments that we did in Northern Ireland last year. But the long-term solution to this has not got to be £1 a week either way on the winter fuel payment; it has got to be home energy efficiency and decent incomes for pensioners, both today and in the long term. It has got to be making sure that people are not wasting their money paying high energy bills, but that their homes are kept warm. One of the striking things about the issue of excess winter deaths is that in many Scandinavian countries, which have much colder climates that we do, they do not have such a thing as excess winter deaths, simply because the homes are built to a decent standard to begin with.
	There is a broad agenda here well beyond the rate of one particular social security benefit, but I can say to the House that we are absolutely committed to tackling fuel poverty. The reverse of the planned cut in the cold
	weather payment is one of the things that we have done, but I hope that I have given the House a feel for many of the other measures that we are taking that will tackle the issue not just for this winter but for the long term as well.

Cathy Jamieson: I thank the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) and his colleagues for bringing this important matter before the House today. The debate is extremely timely, as we are at that point in the year when pensioners are already worrying about what the coming winter weather has in store for them. In my constituency—and in the right hon. Gentleman’s too, no doubt, since he is just across the water from me—we are already experiencing rather colder weather than we have here in London.
	All of us on the Opposition Benches know, and many on the Government Benches also know, although they may not openly admit it, that people are feeling the squeeze of rising prices. They are increasingly worried about the basic costs of living, particularly food and fuel prices. With unemployment at its highest level for 17 years, and more women out of work than at any time since 1988, more and more people are struggling to make ends meet.
	The real problem is that this out-of-touch Government seem to have no idea what it is like for ordinary people who are trying desperately to keep their heads above water. It is time that out-of-touch Ministers realised how tough things are for pensioners right now and how their policies are making things even harder. This year, pensioners are facing not just a double whammy, which was referred to earlier, but a triple whammy of higher VAT, soaring energy prices and what is effectively a cut to the amount of money that they receive in their pockets to assist with winter fuel payments.
	I do not think that the Government understand why people are so outraged that the energy companies can increase their profit margins eight times over at the same time as every household in the country is seeing their bills go sky high. The “Plug the Debt” campaign launched by Consumer Focus and Citizens Advice has highlighted:
	“The average energy bill has risen by over 21% since autumn 2010 from £1,069 per year to £1,273.”
	I have heard the Minister say that that is only a pound a week, or a small amount, and £200 a year might not mean much to the well-off or the millionaire, but believe me it is a huge amount for a pensioner household with a fixed income, where every penny is a prisoner.

Andrea Leadsom: Is it the Opposition’s policy to reverse the decrease from £250 to £200 a year that they proposed and increase it back to £250?

Cathy Jamieson: I will spend some time dealing with that point during the course of the debate, but I want to say at the outset that it is time this Government took responsibility for their actions, rather than constantly blaming someone else for unpopular decisions.

David Hamilton: Last week a Mr and Mrs Watt visited my constituency surgery. They do not make the distinction when losing that £50. They believed that they had a promise of £250. When £50 is taken off, a technical
	argument about whether or not that £50 is there is inappropriate. I also wish to point out that when the winter fuel allowance was first introduced—before some Members came into this place—it was temporary for the first few years and then we made it permanent. This Government could have done exactly the same.

Cathy Jamieson: I am sure that Mr and Mrs Watt are fairly typical of many of the pensioners we all see in our surgeries. It is not only my hon. Friend’s constituents who see this as a cut. The charity director of Age UK said earlier this year:
	“While the uplift was billed as a temporary measure, renewed annually, for those older people struggling to pay fuel bills, this is a question of semantics and they will view the measure as a cut.”
	Pensioners view the measure as a cut as less money is going into their pockets.
	I know from my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, as was mentioned earlier in the debate, that the average household energy bill is around 14% higher in Northern Ireland than in England and Wales. In the 21st century, it is absolutely shocking that around 1,300 are estimated to have died from cold weather-related illnesses in Northern Ireland last year.
	I must also gently point out to the Minister and other Government Members that, although advising consumers to shop around and switch suppliers might make sense to some people, many of the pensioners I have spoken to find the range of tariffs and options on standing charges completely baffling. If people do not have access to the internet and the price comparison sites that the better-off might use, where are they to start? Pensioners do not want the hassle of complicated forms and do not always trust advice given over the phone, particularly after the bad publicity about people feeling under pressure to switch suppliers.
	I heard what the Minister said about there being an 0800 number to call for advice. I do not know whether he has sat with constituents and tried—[ Interruption. ] He mentions pension credit, but I do not whether he has sat with constituents who use a range of advice lines and sometimes find them difficult to use. They might be pensioners who are unused to speaking in detail over the phone and find it an off-putting experience. It is important that people can have face-to-face advice and I would welcome any effort he can make in that regard.
	I also want to mention briefly those who are off-grid, and there are similarities between Scotland and Northern Ireland, particularly in rural areas. It is not so simple for people in those areas to shop around, although some helpful work has been done, for example, in ensuring that there are co-operative ways for communities to come together to purchase fuel. I hope that that is something the Government will support.
	With consumer prices index inflation at 5.2%, pensioners on low and fixed incomes are among the most tightly squeezed, and again Age UK states that
	“older people have experienced a rate of inflation on average 5% above headline measures and this is, in part, because the proportion of their income spent on food and fuel is higher than for other age groups.”
	The harsh reality is that, instead of supporting pensioners, this Government’s actions are making life even tougher—
	[
	Interruption.
	]
	Right on cue, the Minister starts again the usual orchestrated chorus from Government Members, attacking the previous Government rather than looking at what his Government are doing today.

Michael Connarty: On the additional costs of food and fuel, is it not really beholden on the Government to realise that those are the areas where pensioners, in particular, feel the pinch? We are in a situation whereby many pensioners say that it is a matter of either heating or eating, so the Government should adjust not their philosophy but the reality of life to the fact that these inflationary measures are hitting pensioners, who do not have the money or the resources to back up the costs when they come in with the bills that they have to pay.

Cathy Jamieson: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Many pensioners do not want to admit the financial difficulty that they are in. Often, they try to hide it from their family, friends and local community, so they go behind closed doors and curtains, do not put the heating on for fear of the huge bills that may come in, and choose at times when their money is tight to cut down on nutritious food and other essential items. That is the stark reality for many pensioners living in our communities today, and it is time that the Government realised that they have to take responsibility for their own decisions.
	The Government have to take responsibility for their actions and face up to the consequences, so let us take a look at the facts. I am sure that I will get more sedentary comments from Government Members, but it is important to remind people that the UK economy has flatlined over the past year, with just 0.5% growth well before the eurozone crisis, which cannot therefore be entirely to blame for choking off recovery. In the European Union, only Greece, Portugal and Cyprus have grown more slowly than the UK, and the United States has grown more than three times as fast as us over the past 12 months.
	The Government’s mistaken decision to raise VAT to 20% in January has hit pensioners hard. Estimates are that it will cost a pensioner couple on average £275 a year, and I return to my earlier point: that may seem like a small amount to some Members; it is not a small amount for someone who is facing the rise in prices, trying to make every penny go that bit further and facing such difficulties every day.
	We know that the Government’s policies are hurting ordinary people, because we hear it every day from constituents, as my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr Hamilton) said, so we, like the right hon. Member for Belfast North who moved the motion, believe that the Government should look again at the impact of their polices on winter fuel payments and on VAT, which in combination have hit pensioners hard.
	The Government have the opportunity to ease the squeeze on pensioners, and they should take it by temporarily reversing the VAT rise. At the very least, they could do so immediately and put that £275 back into the pockets of pensioners.
	When Labour introduced winter fuel payments, it did so as part of a drive to help tackle fuel poverty among pensioners, and I accept that some Government Members genuinely want to see the problem tackled. The payments
	were specifically designed to give older people the reassurance that they could afford to heat their homes in winter—and do so in a way that would allow them to continue to buy their food and to pay the rest of their bills.
	At the time there was, and indeed there has been since, criticism that the winter fuel allowance was not targeted in the way that some anti-poverty organisations might have wished. Some people wanted the allowance to go further, and others wanted different groups of people included, but we know from research by the Institute for Fiscal Studies that households receiving the winter fuel payment are almost 14 times more likely to spend the money on fuel than they are if their incomes are increased in other ways. That is quite important, and the IFS specifically stated:
	“Households receiving the Winter Fuel Payment spend 41% of it on fuel even though there is no obligation to do so. When the same households receive additional income which is not labelled in any way, they spend just 3% of it on fuel. To put it another way, simply increase the income of a pensioner household by £100 and they will increase their spending on fuel by £3. Label that increase a ‘Winter Fuel Payment’ and £41 will go on fuel.”
	Indeed, the IFS went further by stating:
	“The winter fuel payment was introduced to encourage older households to spend more on heating in the winter. Remarkably it appears to have had just that effect.”
	To be fair to the Government, at least for a moment, they do seem, to be fair—

Maria Miller: “They do seem to be fair.”

Cathy Jamieson: On one or two things, and on this point the Government do seem to have moved on from the days when some people who are now in prominent Government positions thought that winter fuel payments were “gimmicks”. To be fair again to the Pensions Minister, back in May he answered a written parliamentary question by stating:
	“The winter fuel payment provides a significant contribution to an older person’s winter fuel costs and provides vital reassurance that people can afford to turn up their heating.”—[Official Report, 23 May 2011; Vol. 528, c. 493W.]
	Today, he seemed to suggest that he still agrees with that in principle, and I am glad to hear it, although I disagree with him on whether the amount of money going into pensioners’ pockets has been cut.
	The coalition agreement, which has been referred to, states:
	“We will protect key benefits for older people such as the winter fuel allowance”.
	Most reasonable people reading that statement or hearing those words coming from the mouths of Ministers might reasonably have expected the coalition to have protected all winter fuel payments. They were certainly the words that people heard in the run-up to the election, but as we know the winter fuel payment will be £50 lower this year than it was in each of the last three years for eligible households aged 60 or over, and £100 lower for those aged 80 or over. The Department for Work and Pensions estimates that 9 million households benefit from the winter fuel payment, so 9 million households will be worse off this winter.
	People will no doubt seek to make the usual criticisms of the former Labour Government at this point, but when Labour left office no decision had been taken,
	and it was absolutely in the Chancellor’s power to continue with the extra payment, as Labour Chancellors had in previous years. It is therefore absolutely wrong for any Government Member to say that the decision was taken by the previous Government; the decision to axe the additional payment was taken by this coalition Government —no one else.

Steve Webb: Leaving aside the fact that the shadow Work and Pensions Secretary was the man who left the note saying, “There’s no money left,” I must ask, if the previous Government planned to keep the winter fuel payment at £250, why did they not set the money aside in their Budget plans?

Cathy Jamieson: The decision was taken year on year, and it would have been entirely open to a new Government —indeed, if a Labour Government had been elected, there would have been the option—to look at the measure year on year, so no matter how many times Ministers raise the issue, they cannot get away from the fact that the very people who decided not to go ahead with the payment are the coalition Government.
	I am astonished to hear the Minister seemingly suggest that this Government had to follow everything that the previous, Labour Government did. If that had been the case, we would still have had a future jobs fund, and perhaps youth unemployment would not be rocketing. No one wants to intervene on that point, so perhaps we will hear more from the Under-Secretary in her winding-up speech. Rather than harking back to the past, it is time that this out-of-touch Government came back to reality and dealt with the real-life issues facing today’s pensioners.
	Let me give the last word on this to the voice of pensioners. Speaking about the Chancellor’s decision to axe the additional payments, Dot Gibson from the National Pensioners Convention has said:
	“It’s a shabby way to treat Britain’s older generation. If we really are all in this together, why is he going to take £100 off the winter fuel allowance for the oldest members of society at a time when fuel bills are rising and winter deaths amongst older people are a national scandal? He should be ashamed of his behaviour”.

Robert Smith: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) on choosing this subject. With winter fast approaching, this is an issue that will clearly be on many of our constituents’ minds. Although it has been unseasonably warm in my part of Scotland, we must realise that the winter is still ahead of us and we face the challenge of yet again trying to heat our homes. I declare an interest to the House. In the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, I have noted oil and gas industry interests which are relevant to this debate.
	As has become apparent in the debate, fuel poverty is made up of a combination of three pillars: the cost of the energy itself, the income of the household, and the quality of the houses that people live in and are trying to heat. All three of those factors need tackling, and attempts have been made to do so over the years. I suspect that one of the mistakes probably made by all of us, but particularly by the previous Government, was relying on the cost of energy as the main platform for tackling fuel poverty in a period when competition brought down energy prices. We did not realise the need
	to get our housing stock well and truly up to standard to ensure that, when prices went back up, people would be able to afford to heat their homes because they would not need so much energy. The energy efficiency of homes and our housing stock is a crucial factor in building the long-term foundations for tackling the problem once and for all.
	In the run-up to this winter, the Government are rightly trying to concentrate on making sure that energy bills are as low as possible by pushing for an end to the complexity. As the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) made clear, many people do not know how to shop around. They are faced with myriad complex tariffs and offers and are lured in to sign up to new contracts and, after that, a rising tariff. One of the ways of improving the markets and ensuring that at least bills are no higher than they should be is to have clearer tariffs and an end to the complexity.
	The other problem is that of houses not on the gas grid. It would be interesting to hear, perhaps in the reply to the debate, whether anything can be done in Northern Ireland to extend the gas grid. If we can get more people on to the gas main, it will at least ensure that they have one of the most reasonable fuels for heating their homes in the immediate future.
	However, not every house will be on the gas grid and we will have to tackle the problem of those that are not. Consumers of grid heating fuels such as gas and electricity have a market in which Ofgem—the regulator—and the rules consider how vulnerable customers are treated, and vulnerable customers cannot be disconnected in the winter. However, following the Office of Fair Trading inquiry and all the other reports on the off-grid, I am concerned that heating oil and liquefied petroleum gas suppliers do not have the same constraints on their market in terms of how they handle vulnerable customers and their relationship with them.

Michael Weir: The hon. Gentleman is making a very good point. He may remember that, in the previous Parliament, the excuse was always that that market was made up of smaller companies. Does he agree that that is no longer so? In many cases, suppliers have a virtual monopoly, and it is high time that the same sort of tariffs were introduced into that market as those that exist in the electricity and gas markets.

Robert Smith: One can certainly buy from a lot of brands, but when one gets behind them and finds out who the beneficial owner is, one learns that it is not necessarily a different company. There is still scope for considering something we pursued when the hon. Gentleman and I were both on the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change in the previous Parliament, and that is whether Ofgem should have some kind of locus in relation to off-grid customers as well as on-grid customers. It is certainly worth pursuing with the Secretary of State and Ofgem whether there is any way it can be involved in that market to improve the treatment of vulnerable customers.
	I welcome the warm home discount because, obviously, that targets a saving that goes some way to counteract the loss of income. However, we must recognise that the long-term pressures are upward for energy prices, which
	brings us back to the need to tackle the quality of homes. There is a hope that shale gas may have the potential to assist with energy prices in the medium term, but the reality is that we have to prepare for a world where energy prices are higher. Therefore, in terms of targeting resources, I welcome the cold weather payment being maintained at the higher level because that at least targets those who have the most need most effectively.
	The take-up of benefits is crucial and we need to reinforce the campaigns and the different ways of engaging with customers. The data sharing on pensioners between energy companies and the Government is going some way towards trying to identify those vulnerable customers. The energy companies that are doing benefit audits of their customers have shown that such an approach can greatly improve a household’s income. Pensioner take-up of targeted benefits needs to be improved, as does the information. We need to try to get across to people the message that these payments are entitlements. not gifts. People are entitled to these payments and they should not feel in any way inhibited from claiming them, because they have been paid for and they are meant to be claimed. If they were claimed, the problem of fuel poverty would be reduced.
	Information is also crucial in trying to get people’s homes up to standard. There is still a lot of reluctance to engage, even when energy efficiency is free. With the upheaval and the uncertainty, people do not have the confidence to let someone into their home to interfere with the fabric of their building. We need to give people more reassurance that the long-term benefits of improving the energy efficiency of their home will give them a stable future when it comes to fuel bills.

David Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned that the take-up is not as good as it could be, but part of the problem is that we do not have a one-front shop. We should have an organisation—for example, one of those dealing with welfare rights such as the citizens advice bureau—through which someone who is looking for benefits can also find out about the other things available to them. How does that square with the cuts that are being made to local government, because that is the other side of the coin? There are substantial cuts. Many of the people who give the advice are not there now and some of those organisations are closing down. I should also declare an interest in this debate because I am over 60 so I qualify, too.

Robert Smith: Yes, it is crucial to ensure that people have access to the information. We also need to ensure that those who have contact with pensioners are aware of it. The health benefits of living in a properly insulated home are very great, but not enough is done through the health service to steer people towards available schemes to help them to heat their homes. When someone presents at a GP’s practice with a health problem that can be exacerbated by a cold home, they should immediately be steered towards information about how to get benefits to improve their home.
	I shall highlight one of the frustrations of promoting warm homes week. I went out to help energy efficiency installers. At one semi-detached house, people were drilling a hole in the wall and putting a chain down through the hole in the wall between them and the neighbour.
	When I asked why, they said, “It’s to make sure the neighbour doesn’t get any insulation,” because the neighbour did not want it. That shows both the resistance to what is inevitably in the best interests of the home and the level of inefficiency. Installers cannot do a whole street because individuals have not got the confidence to share. Obviously, if they are out installing in one house, installing in another house at the same time will greatly reduce the cost of the scheme and increase the take-up. We have to get the information across to people that these schemes are there to help them and that if they make use of them they will have a long-term benefit. The great benefit of improving our housing stock is that as people’s incomes fluctuate and as people move, they will still not fall into fuel poverty.
	At a fundamental level, we must get the housing stock sorted out, we must give people the confidence to take up the benefits to which they are entitled, and we must ensure that the energy markets work to maximum efficiency so that even in a time of rising prices we do not pay over the odds for our energy.

William McCrea: This debate has at least established something, because the Minister has acknowledged, as Hansard will clearly show, that we are talking about cuts—that what is being proposed, and what is actually happening, is a cut for pensioners. I appreciate his having forthrightly acknowledged that, for it is often painted in another fashion or covered up in some way.
	It is true that we are living in financially difficult times and that hard choices have to be made. The Government have made a choice to cut pensioners’ winter fuel payment, and they must stand by their choice. We have often listened to the Government hiding behind things that the Opposition were going to do had they remained in power. They must stop doing that and face the fact that they are in government, so they carry the responsibility. What some other Government were going to do is not relevant; what is relevant is that this coalition Government have decided to cut money from the most vulnerable people in our society. The cost of living for the over-65s is increasing, as it has been for the past four years, and they are now faced with a cut. When I listened to the Minister’s speech, I wondered whether there was a prize for the quiz that he was holding, but we have not heard whether he will give some pensioners the prize of a reinstatement of this money.
	Let us acknowledge that for many of our constituents in Northern Ireland, gas is not a possibility; they do not have that option. People are facing exorbitant, rocketing heating oil prices, and in many cases throughout the Province they have no alternative. Heating oil prices seem to keep going up. My constituents constantly tell me that it is amazing that just when the cheques for the winter fuel payment are about to come through the letterbox, the oil prices go up. Perhaps a review of this could be undertaken, because it has a serious impact on my constituents, who face great difficulties at this time of the year. I acknowledge that the energy stamps scheme run by some of our councils is of great help to our constituents in enabling them to face the heating bills that come in during the winter months.

Robert Smith: There is an aspect of off-grid that I did not touch on, and I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman thinks that there is more mileage in it. As the renewable heat initiative comes in, does he agree that converting some off-grid domestic properties to heat pumps, particularly air source heat pumps, could make a difference?

William McCrea: With the greatest respect, many of the people who are losing the winter fuel payment—for example, those who are over 80—will not know about the scheme that the hon. Gentleman mentions. Let us deal with reality, because these are the people who are going to suffer as a result of the coalition Government’s proposal.

Kate Hoey: I congratulate the Democratic Unionist party on proposing this debate, and I presume that there will be a Division of some kind so that we can show our views. Does the hon. Gentleman think that the saddest part of this cut, made for the sake of such a minimal amount of money, no matter what the economic position, is that it is the people over 80 who are really going to suffer?

William McCrea: I thank the hon. Lady for her comments, with which I wholeheartedly agree.
	When I looked at today’s Daily Mail, I saw that the editor’s comment says—[Hon. Members: “Daily Mail?”] With the greatest respect, let me deal with the issue. It says that at a time when our people are enduring cuts at home, including to the winter fuel payment, UK taxpayers are ploughing an extra £300 million into an organisation such as Europe, with increases of “only” 2%. The Minister asked where the money would come from; I think we have identified where some of it could come from. Instead of paying it to Europe, we could be paying it to our elderly people—those over 80 years of age who are facing a choice between eating and heating. My right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) mentioned the money wasted on the referendum on the voting system, which was held to placate the minor party in the coalition. That money could have been spent to assist the elderly. It ill behoves those in the coalition to ask where the money would come from to deal with this situation, as they can certainly find it for others rather than the citizens of the United Kingdom.
	These past three years have been devastating for the fuel poor within our society. Last winter in Northern Ireland, we faced the coldest December for over 100 years, with energy prices continuing to escalate, and we are entering a situation where the choice between heating and eating is a sad reality for many of our elderly constituents. In my own constituency of South Antrim, it has been estimated that as many as 42.4% of the population are living in fuel poverty, at least half of whom are pensioner householders. That is a significant figure and a worrying statistic.
	Behind the statistics are human beings—elderly people within our society—who are suffering. Research carried out by Help the Aged in 2006 suggested that in winter many older people cope with the cold by staying in bed longer or wearing outdoor clothes indoors. The charity’s opinion that it is unacceptable in this day and age that
	anyone should have to resort to such measures in order to minimise heating bills will surely find support across this House. In its impact report in 2006, it stated:
	“Winter is a difficult time for many older people. The cold, dark winter months leave many confined to their homes and for too many older people, those homes are cold, damp and inhospitable. Each year, older people living on inadequate incomes regard the approach of winter with dread”.
	This year, with the decrease in their winter fuel payment, will certainly be no exception.
	Living in a cold, damp home can have devastating effects on the health and social well-being of the elderly, rendering them isolated and susceptible to what should be avoidable illnesses such as asthma and stroke. Between 2002 and 2009, the number of winter deaths in Northern Ireland increased by 366%, and they are now at the highest level in western Europe. Experts agree that one of the root causes of this shocking statistic is fuel poverty.
	When the then Government first introduced the winter fuel payment in the winter of 1997-98, they threw a vital and welcome lifeline to many thousands of pensioners across the United Kingdom. The decision to cut the winter fuel payment this year is shocking and people have reacted bitterly to the news. Only last month, a group of older people from Age Sector Platform in Northern Ireland travelled to Westminster to present the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), with a petition containing the signatures of almost 15,000 people who were united in opposition to the cut to the winter fuel payment this year. The Age Sector Platform campaign continues to receive support as each day passes, not only from elderly people but from younger people who are genuinely concerned about their parents and grandparents who had depended on this additional and welcome source of income. Never before has a lobby issue attracted such a high level of support in such a short space of time.
	Members will be interested to know that in June, a Pensioners’ Parliament was held in Northern Ireland for the first time. There was overwhelming support for a motion calling on the Government to reverse their decision to cut the winter fuel payment this year and to look at ways of linking future payments to energy prices. A survey conducted in the run-up to the Pensioners’ Parliament also emphasised the need for action in this area. It showed that three out of four older people identified keeping warm in winter as a worry, making it the number one concern. As politicians, we cannot fail to recognise that a strong message is being sent to us and to this House.
	The proportion of homes in fuel poverty in Northern Ireland is three times greater than that in England. Households in Northern Ireland spend 43% more on energy than the UK average. Electricity prices in Northern Ireland are 29% higher than in January 2008 and 11% higher than in the rest of the UK. The price of home heating oil increased by more than 150% between 2003 and 2010, with 23% of that increase occurring in just the last year.
	It is inconceivable that once again this winter our elderly will have to choose between heating their homes and putting food on the table. The Government, through
	their current course of action, are condemning many pensioners in my constituency to a winter of hardship and suffering. As the National Energy Action group has said:
	“Fuel Poverty is killing those most vulnerable in our society annually.”
	It goes on to say that it is a basic essential that
	“all householders in Northern Ireland have access to affordable warmth.”
	Unfortunately, without urgent action from the Government on this matter, that entitlement will be denied to many.
	I will finish because I realise that many right hon. and hon. Members want to speak. I will leave Members with a direct quotation from a lady known simply as Mrs P, who contributed to the Help the Aged impact report:
	“When I get up, because I can’t sleep and I come down, I put an old quilt round me, and I sit here for as long as I can, reading, until I get absolutely frozen. Then I have to put the fire on and I think to myself ‘Look at me wasting all this fuel.’”
	Let us not waste a moment longer. I appeal to the Minister to ensure that the appropriate action is taken to prevent people such as Mrs P from falling even deeper into fuel poverty.

Jackie Doyle-Price: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea). The speeches of Members on the Opposition Benches have been characterised by a great passion on behalf of their constituents about the issue of fuel poverty. Everybody in this House is concerned about that issue and we have all had to deal with constituents who are finding life a struggle. The opportunity to debate our concern for the vulnerable this afternoon is an example of Parliament at its best, because such issues are why we are all in this place and why we attempt to do our best. It is important that Government Members think about what we are doing for pensioners and how far we are supporting them in dealing with the ever-increasing burden of fuel prices.
	I assure Members of the Opposition parties that if the measures that the Government are putting in place were less than adequate, I would be the first in line to criticise them. However, if we look just through the prism of the winter fuel payment, we do not see the whole story. We need to look at the wider support that we are giving to pensioners through pension reform and other benefits.

Lady Hermon: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady so early in her speech. She has conveyed the impression that coalition Members are very concerned, as they ought to be, about this serious issue that affects all parts of the United Kingdom. Why, therefore, are there so few Members on the Government Benches this evening? It is really embarrassing.

Jackie Doyle-Price: I could also point to the lack of Members on the Labour Benches, but this is not an occasion to engage in party politics. We need to turn our attention to debating the substance of the issue.
	I am satisfied that what the Government are putting in place is appropriate to support our pensioners. As I said, we need to consider the wider support that we are giving pensioners to deal with fuel bills, the other benefits
	that we are giving pensioners and the pension reforms. We also need to consider the quality of the housing stock, which has been raised a number of times in this debate. We need to think about what can be done to reduce bills, because then we would not have to give so much support to cover energy prices. At the moment, a lot of energy is used to heat the air above people’s houses.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: No one on the Opposition Benches would argue with the point that we need to do more to make homes more energy efficient. The difficulty is that we are in the worst recession for decades, energy costs are going through the roof—literally when homes are not properly insulated—and pensioner incomes have decreased in real terms. We are simply saying that this is the wrong time to make such a cut.

Jackie Doyle-Price: I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman agrees with the point about the quality of housing stock. There is a lot of Government support for people to invest in such improvements. The difficult is in take-up. He focuses on the winter fuel payment and identifies it as a cut. Instead of having a broad-brush, one-off payment that is available to everyone, we must tackle the root causes of fuel poverty and identify the households that will benefit the most from such help.

Sarah Newton: Does my hon. Friend agree that many of the solutions can be found locally in our communities? For example, Community Energy Plus is working with Cornwall council to use the Government incentives to tackle fuel poverty by offering free insulation to vulnerable households living in fuel poverty in Cornwall right now, this winter. The critical role that we can play as MPs is to work in partnership with organisations in our communities to ensure that people know about and take up the good schemes that are available.

Jackie Doyle-Price: My hon. Friend makes a constructive point, which goes to the heart of the point that the Minister made earlier about the lack of take-up, particularly of means-tested benefits. That happens for a host of reasons, including that they are too difficult to take up, that people are too proud, and the lack of awareness among pensioners about the support that they can get to improve the quality of their housing. That is because many of the schemes are nationally designed and rolled out, and the information is not readily available. We can do a lot to push people in the right direction so that they can find help, such as through the project that my hon. Friend mentioned. All Members can play a constructive, championing role, because we are all community leaders. We need to pay our part in pointing pensioners towards the sources of help that they can access to tackle this growing problem.

Kate Hoey: The hon. Lady is right that we all have a responsibility to make people aware of such things. However, if she were an 89-year-old lady living on her own on a tiny pension, would she really think it her priority to have the huge disruption of someone doing all that work in her house? What she would actually want would be the money that she had last year, so that she could increase her use of electricity over the coming winter.

Jackie Doyle-Price: I think what a lady in that situation wants is to be warm, and we can apply any number of tools to ensure that she is. Part of that is making money available through the winter fuel payment and pension credit, and part of it is improving the quality of our housing stock. That is the point—it is not simply about the winter fuel payment.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. She is being very generous with her time.
	The hon. Lady has indicated that there are plenty of areas of support for pensioners that should be used. However, when we start to dig into them and explore them, we realise that they are actually quite limited. For example, someone who applies to the boiler replacement scheme will get help only if they are in receipt of rate relief. The people who are in the most need, after means-testing, are those who receive housing benefit, but they are excluded from the scheme. There is therefore a double whammy—even if those people explore and try to exploit the assistance that exists, it is not available to them.

Jackie Doyle-Price: There are a number of schemes that are designed to provide such support, and I suspect that there are alternative schemes for people who claim housing benefit. Also, who is responsible for meeting the cost of such work depends on the nature of the landlord.
	I should like to highlight some of the things that the Government have done to alleviate fuel poverty for pensioners. We have heard reference to the warm home discount, which will enable pensioners to have a mandatory rebate on their electricity bills. The Government have also permanently increased the cold weather payments, and it is very important to make that point when we consider where support is being directed. We can have the universal benefit of the winter fuel payments, and to some extent I am attracted to that, because we have poor levels of pension credit take-up. However, it is important that we strike a balance, because we can all point out people who are entitled to that benefit and perhaps do not need it. Focusing more support on cold weather payments, which go to pensioners who claim means-tested benefit, is entirely appropriate.
	The motion concentrates on the cut in the winter fuel payments. The Minister said that the level that was previously budgeted for was only a temporary increase. Members have said that we could have decided to stick with that increase, and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) had a nice try when she said, “Look, this is a cut, it’s up to you what to do.” However, as I said, it is important to see the matter in the round and see what we have done to focus additional support on those who need it most, through cold weather payments.
	Members have mentioned the issue of housing stock, and I encourage the Government to consider what more can be done to highlight the schemes that exist and encourage more people to take up support to improve the quality of housing. Ultimately, we are not going to tackle the issues of fuel poverty and ever-increasing bills unless we really focus on delivering energy efficiency in all our homes. We need to do that not just for pensioners but for low-income households in general.

Nigel Adams: With the green deal coming down the track, which could have a huge impact on heating bills right across the country, does my hon. Friend think the Government could learn lessons about how it should be administered, particularly for pensioners? There is a chance that the scheme could be wrapped up in red tape. We have heard about how restrictive various other schemes can be for the elderly. Cannot the Government learn lessons about how the green deal can be delivered for elderly people?

Jackie Doyle-Price: It is always a challenge for the Government and the public sector to deliver such schemes in a user-friendly way that makes them available to people and does not dissuade them. We need to continue our principle of using all organisations in society and making them approachable. As my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) mentioned, we need to use voluntary groups and the other groups that are closest to pensioners, to encourage them to engage. We can see elements of that starting already in welfare reform. The Government are looking to local authorities to be stronger delivery partners, because they tend to be the organisations with which pensioners have the closest day-to-day contact. We need to think carefully about making support people-friendly and easy to access.
	I wish to set the winter fuel payment against the broader context of what the Government are doing for pensioners. They have confirmed that they will be keeping other benefits, such as free TV licences, prescriptions and eye tests, and they have set aside £650 million to help local authorities freeze council tax. We should all recognise that council tax has been a real problem and has contributed to pensioners’ financial difficulties. As we know, if local authorities can limit their budget increases to 2.5%, the Government will meet the cost of the freeze. In recent years the average increase in council tax has been quite significant, and it has been a pernicious bill for many households.
	I particularly wish to congratulate the Government on restoring the earnings link to pensions and introducing the triple lock to guarantee an increase in the basic state pension of the highest of earnings, prices or 2.5%. That measure will go further than any other in addressing pensioner poverty. It will give pensioners a firm financial foundation from the state and guarantee a more generous state pension. That is the essential goal of what we are trying to do—we want to ensure that everyone is guaranteed an income that will prevent them from being in poverty.

Sarah Newton: I completely agree with my hon. Friend’s point about improvements and annual increases in the state pension. Does she agree that some of our reforms to the NHS will also have a hugely beneficial effect on older people? Integrating social care with the NHS and giving the health and wellbeing boards a key health outcome of reducing fuel poverty represents a more holistic approach. We are considering pensioners, their families and their lifestyle in the round, and we are supporting them.

Jackie Doyle-Price: The broader point is that many of the issues that face us in later life have been parked for too long. I congratulate the Government on gripping them, and in the ongoing debate we will have to ensure that we have good provision for people in their later
	years. I believe that will occupy the House’s attention for quite some time, because we cannot afford to get it wrong. We all need to get behind the Government and help to tackle the matter.

William McCrea: I accept all the hon. Lady’s points, but this is not an either/or situation. Surely the winter fuel payments complement what she has described. As the Minister has acknowledged today, the Government are proposing cuts. Many of our pensioners are asset-rich but income-poor, and they fall into the means-testing trap. The winter fuel payment is one way to help them.

Jackie Doyle-Price: I was just about to come on to means-testing, because that is where problems have arisen. I completely take the hon. Gentleman’s point that many pensioners are asset-rich and cash-poor, and that is why they find it difficult to make ends meet and pay all their bills. However, the biggest problem with pension credit and the move to means-tested benefits is that a number of people are not claiming what they are entitled to, for a number of reasons. It is partly because of the complexity of the system, but probably one of the biggest reasons is pride. Those of us who were familiar with my grandparents’ generation know that they really did not want to ask for what they were entitled to. We have tried to strike a balance between universal payment and means-testing, to direct support to those who need it. Ultimately, that will work only if we make it easier, and less of a stigma, for people to claim what they are entitled to.
	I am quite confident that we have got the balance right, but I am not confident that we are doing enough to encourage people to make claims. The National Audit Office has pointed out that of the one third of people who are entitled to pension credit who do not claim it, many are in the poorest households. All of us could do our bit by highlighting the fact that support is available to people and encouraging them to claim it if they are entitled to it.
	We want to ensure that older people receive the help to which they are entitled, and we need to satisfy ourselves that we are putting enough measures in place to support our pensioners. I am grateful to Democratic Unionist party Members for initiating this debate, which has given us the opportunity to ask ourselves whether we are doing enough, and I congratulate the Government on all that they are doing in this area.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I just say to hon. Members that we have four more Back Benchers to get in, and we are up against time—we have just under an hour left.

David Simpson: It is important to say at the start that DUP Members support the measures that coalition Members have talked about, including insulating walls and new windows, but we need to talk about now. We are coming into the winter, and we need to talk about winter fuel payments. Those other measures are good in their place, and eventually—hopefully—they will be implemented in many of our older buildings in the UK, but that is not happening now. We need to talk about the here and now of winter fuel payments.
	I begin by quoting a Government Minister speaking in this Chamber a little earlier this year:
	“I am sorry, we got this one wrong—but we have listened to people’s concerns. I thank colleagues for their support through what has been a very difficult issue. I now want to move forward in step with the public. I hope that the measures that I have announced today, signalling a fresh approach, demonstrate my intention to do the right thing”—[Official Report, 17 February 2011; Vol. 523, c. 1155-1156.]
	That was the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs speaking about forestry. Would it not be an extraordinary state of affairs if a member of Her Majesty’s Government could come to the House to offer an apology, concede that the Government have got it wrong, say that they had listened to the people and announce a change of direction on forests, but another member of the Government says that there could be no such apology, announcement or about-turn when it comes to our elderly, who are some of the weakest and most vulnerable members of our society?
	That is the distasteful core of the debate, and it is why the DUP moved this motion today. Some hon. Members might feel that using words such as “distasteful” is taking things a bit far, but let me quote from the independent financial advice website, moneysavingexpert.com. On 24 March 2011, it reported that the Chancellor had “secretly” cut the allowance. In an article published on 19 October 2011, fullfact.org considered the conflicting arguments between the political parties and referenced a recent piece jointly written by the Prime Minister on moneysavingexpert.com on 17 October. The fullfact.org article concluded by saying that despite questions on how long the payment was intended for,
	“there seems to be no question that the payments are being reduced.”
	My colleagues mentioned this earlier, but it perhaps needs to be mentioned again. The Minister asked, “Where does this extra money come from?”. In that respect, we need to emphasise the hundreds of millions of pounds that have been poured into Europe—in Northern Ireland, we would say that it is disappearing like snow off a ditch. We see no benefit from the money, but our old and other members of society in the UK are suffering greatly for it. The Government need to re-look at the money that they are pouring into Europe while our old and infirm are suffering at home.
	According to uSwitch.com, the price comparison website, the position for many in the UK is that since November last year, energy suppliers have increased their prices by £224, or 21%, on average. As a result, the average household energy bill has rocketed from £1,069 to £1,293 a year. In just over five years, household energy bills have rocketed by £633, or 96%, from £660 a year in 2006 to £1,293 a year today, following recent increases.
	The number of those in fuel poverty has spiralled, with 6.9 million, or 27%, of households now affected. The worst affected groups are single working parents, pensioners or couples living off one income. Almost nine in 10 households—89%—will ration their energy use this winter to save on bills. As a result, potentially 23 million households will be switching off or turning down this winter, 4 million—or 16%—more than last year.
	Eighty-seven per cent. of people are worried about the cost of their energy bills as they head towards the winter months, 26% more than last year. Fifty-five per cent. of people went without heating at some point last
	winter to keep energy costs down. That looks set to rise. The hefty 21%, or £224, hike in the last year means that energy costs are the top household worry for consumers—90% of households are worried about energy costs, whereas 42% of households are worried about mortgage payments and 77% are worried about the rising cost of food.
	The disposable income of more than nine in 10 households —93%—has been hit by the rising cost of energy. Thirty-seven per cent. have seen a dramatic reduction in their disposable income, while 19% no longer have disposable income. More than one in three households—37%—are in bill debt and are using credit to cover their day-to-day household bills. Thirty-six per cent. owe more than £1,000 and more than one in 10 households—14%—owe more than £3,000.
	If ever a year were exactly the worst time to introduce such a cut, it is this one. If ever there were a year when introducing such a cut was precisely the last thing that the Government ought to do, it is this one.
	This debate was introduced by the DUP, but it is not simply about Northern Ireland; it is rightly about the entire UK. However, alongside the issues that I raised previously, I should like to focus on Northern Ireland. According to Age Sector Platform—other right hon. and hon. Members have stated this, but it needs to be stated again—last winter, Northern Ireland faced the coldest December for more than 100 years. It was a horrific time for the elderly. According to figures that I have been given, during the winter of 2009-10, 756 people aged 65-plus died of cold-related illnesses in Northern Ireland.
	With the additional costs, the price hikes, the increased bill debt, the reduced disposable income and the increased rationing of warmth, does any right hon. or hon. Member really suppose that we will not witness more vulnerable people dying needlessly this year? Does anyone suppose that the planned cut will reduce the number of deaths? If the Government can come to the Chamber, offer an apology, claim to have listened to the views of the public and announce a U-turn on forests, why can they not do likewise for the old, the frail and the most vulnerable in our society?
	There are many men and women fighting for this country in Afghanistan, or who fought in Iraq and Libya, who have parents at home who are vulnerable and getting it hard. They are fighting for their country while this coalition has taken away the very money that could help to heat their parents’ homes. That decision is unacceptable and needs to be reversed. If the Government can do it for forests, surely to goodness they can do it for the most vulnerable in our society.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Nigel Evans: Order. Three people have indicated that they wish to speak, and the wind-ups start at 7.18 pm. If they can divide the time among themselves, everybody will get in.

Mark Durkan: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson). I commend him and his colleagues on bringing the motion to the House. In particular, I commend the
	right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) on the cogent and assertive way in which he moved the motion and anticipated many of the Government’s arguments.
	The motion is timely and focused. Contrary to much of the debate, which has ranged far and wide along the full dimensions of fuel poverty, the structural condition of the housing stock, fuel prices and all those vagaries, the motion is focused on something under the control of the House and the Government: the decision on the winter fuel payments. We are clear that all those issues need to be addressed, and the measures taken by the previous and present Governments are to be encouraged, as too are other more far-reaching measures, but given the rampant rise in energy costs for older people and all the other pressures on their incomes, we cannot countenance complacency about the cut to winter fuel payments.
	The decision on winter fuel payments represents a clear and present cut imposed by this Government. The Minister tried to argue first that it was not a cut, then that it was a Labour planned cut, but the fact is this: it is a clear and present cut for pensioner households already facing other pressures and difficulties. It is a sleight of hand for people to suggest, “Well, the Government were committed to doing what the previous Government did”, because really they said, “No, we’re only committed to doing what we think the previous Government planned, not what they did.”
	The hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) said that we have to talk to and listen to our pensioners. I have, and every single one has told me that the cut is an issue for them, and every single one is clear that for three years they received payments at a certain level, but that this year they will not get them at that level. That is a cut, and it is a cut from this Government.

Jim Shannon: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this is at a time when they need it most?

Mark Durkan: Yes, of course it is at a time when they need it most, and it is not only the time of year when they need it most but the time in the economic cycle—with all the difficulties that people are facing.
	We have heard some duplicitous arguments from Government Members. On the one hand many people talk about the difficulties with means-tested benefits and with supporting pensioners through pension credits, but on the other hand we have heard criticisms of the fuel payment and the fact that it is not means-tested or discriminatory. We have heard contradictory arguments.
	Indeed, the Minister earlier argued against the whole scheme, structure and logic of winter fuel payments. He actually argued against the allowance altogether and said that better, more discriminating interventions were available to protect people against fuel poverty and to support more deserving pensioners. In the light of his logic, I wonder whether the Government plan fundamentally to review or redesign the fuel payment.
	The previous Government introduced the single annual payment in 1998, but the first time I heard it advocated was in 1988, when my predecessor, John Hume, commended to the then social security Minister, John Major, the introduction of an annual thermal allowance to overcome many of the difficulties with the cold weather payments,
	their inadequacy and the poor and inconsistent triggering system. Thankfully, we got something similar with the winter fuel payment in 1998.
	Over the years, the amount of money committed to the payment has changed and top-ups have been introduced. Pensioners have come to see those top-ups as a given, and considering what the Prime Minister said going into the election, they had every right to expect them to remain a given. The motion tabled by my compatriots in the Democratic Unionist party gives the House the opportunity to signal to the Government that that is what we want and what pensioners expect.
	Many valid arguments have been made about how to tackle fuel poverty—improving energy efficiency, for example. Although some of those measures can be introduced in Northern Ireland at the devolved level, others need wider intervention from here. Those could include more up-front investment in energy efficiency retrofit schemes or VAT concessions not least to stimulate work in the hard-pressed construction sector, which is not building new houses. There is an awful lot of work that people with construction skills could do to retrofit and improve existing houses, and there are many things that young people who want to get construction skills could do on such schemes. The Government need to think more widely about other measures to tackle fuel poverty, but they should not use the existence of other interventions as an excuse to justify this unjustified cut.
	I shall not rehearse the statistics on the levels of fuel poverty in Northern Ireland that my colleagues have mentioned because other Members want to speak, and nor shall I rehearse the number of winter deaths from fuel poverty either in the UK at large or in Northern Ireland. I shall only make the point that those deaths are avoidable and that we need to take what steps we can to avoid them. This cut is avoidable.
	The Minister asked, “Where else can the money come from?” I do not necessarily agree with some of the suggestions from right hon. and hon. colleagues, although I am glad that the Government moved on from some of the vanity projects—for example, the NHS IT scheme. Money could also be saved on Trident.

Tom Clarke: The hon. Gentleman mentioned mortality. As he knows, I have family in Armagh, where the climate can be pretty tough, but it can be even colder and more difficult in Scandinavia, where the figures for hypothermia are much lower than ours. Is that not a point that we should bear in mind?

Mark Durkan: Yes, it is. That raises questions about investment in quality housing stock and the levels of social support, guarantees and interventions available in Scandinavian countries, and it is why we need to follow the precise focus of the motion, which relates specifically to the winter fuel payment.
	I attended the Northern Ireland Pensioners’ Parliament to which hon. Members have referred. It took place in the summer—in June—yet the single strongest issue coming through concerned the winter fuel payment. Yes, people were aware of the changes and the pensions triple lock, but they did not buy it and obviously resented the sleight of hand, with the change in indexation and so on. What they focused on was the direct cut facing them. That is why so many people have campaigned on it, and not just in Northern Ireland.
	As the Government look to what they can do to help shelter people from the effects of recession and face the rampant pressures on household costs, I hope that they will reinstate the top-up in winter fuel payments to support pensioners. When pensioners hear the question, “Where will the money come from?”, they say, as some pensioners said at the Pensioners’ Parliament, “When this quantitative easing happens”—supposedly so that money gets out there into the economy—“why is the money given to the banks?” When that money goes into the banks, does it get out there into the economy? Those pensioners make the sensible point—this is one thing we do know—that when we give money to pensioners, it will be spent. It will not stay in those households; it will be spent, in local shops and so on, and go usefully and legitimately into the economy. If there is another phase of quantitative easing and more money is made available to go into the economy, perhaps it should go via pensioners. Then we would all share in the benefits and, in particular, pensioners would be sheltered from the cold.

Jim Shannon: It gives me great pleasure to speak in this House on behalf of the elderly and those in need, and to address the issue of the winter fuel payment.
	I read a statement the other day that said:
	“The world is getting older.The UN has called the current global ageing trend a situation ‘without parallel in the history of humanity.’ Here in Northern Ireland, our very own society is ageing…An ageing demographic like this carries significant consequences for the fabric of our community.It changes how we plan the way we live; education systems, health and social care, work life, family life.It affects older people now and in the future.”
	I am aware of the clear demographic changes in my constituency of Strangford, to which many people move to retire—it is a beautiful place to visit at most times, but it is also a nice place to retire—and where the issue of winter fuel payments comes up over and over again. It comes up because—let us be clear about this—winter fuel payments are not a luxury, but something that goes to pay for fuel, which, for most elderly people in my constituency, means oil. Therefore, the cost is greater than anywhere else. It is no exaggeration to say that literally hundreds of my constituents have spoken to my offices about this issue, and it is clear what they are telling me: winter fuel payments are critical for them to get through the winter.
	Age NI has a vision for Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom:
	“To create a world in which older people flourish,”
	and:
	“To enhance and improve the lives of older people”.
	Those are the words of Age NI, but they should apply everywhere in the United Kingdom, and be taken on board by all the elected representatives in this place as well.
	Age NI has three themes—health and social care; poverty; and equality and human rights—but this evening we are focusing on poverty. Poverty affects health and social care, and winter fuel payments and poverty affect equality and human rights as well. Although there are many ways of helping—my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) spoke earlier about the pension credit, and the Minister responded in an intervention—we need a way of speeding the system up.
	The system needs a sense of urgency; I cite the number of times that I have to phone through to the pension credit system to ask for something to be done only for me to have to return to the problem a week later or perhaps the week after that. The system also needs less bureaucracy and paperwork.
	The autumn spending review is an opportunity to put older people at the heart of Government policy and to plan for an ageing population. Northern Ireland has some 300,000 people of retirement age, who make up 17% of the population, and the trend is upward. Unfortunately, the figure will be 24% or 25% in a few years. The largest increase will be in what is sometimes referred to as the “older old”. It is not an “Irishism” to say that: it refers to those who are 80-plus, who feel the pain of winter more than most. Other Members have underlined that point today, stressing the importance of all those who fit into the pension bracket, but especially those who are 80-plus, of whom it is estimated that there will be some 130,000 in a short period of time. Again, that is a concern.
	Two fifths of single pensioners and one fifth of pensioner couples have no income other than their retirement pension and state benefits. Whenever we put the issue in perspective, we see that the winter fuel payment means a whole lot to those people. Some 44% of my constituents are in fuel poverty. By the way, the same proportion of those entitled to draw the pension credit—44%—are not claiming it. When the Minister responds, I will be keen to hear her ideas about how we can ensure that they apply. One of the figures underlining this issue that came up in research is that average weekly unclaimed benefits are estimated at between £1.2 million and £2.3 million, which is a vast amount of money. It is important that we address those issues.
	Some 23% of older people across certain parts of Northern Ireland are living in poverty, whereas the figure is 16% in the UK. The Minister referred to how we gauge the extra money in the winter fuel payment to reflect the temperature. I made the point in a Westminster Hall debate earlier this year that I drove from Greyabbey to Newtownards in my constituency, speaking to people along the way, and found different temperatures all the way up the road. Obviously the temperature is lower closer to the coast, but in certain parts of Ards it was below zero, while over in Ballygowan and Comber it was minus 3º or 4º. That is an illustration of how the temperature can vary within a 50 to 60-mile radius.
	Why is it crucial that the winter fuel payment is made? Because a failure to do so will mean more referrals to the health service, with elderly care accounting for 21% of all the programme of care expenditure. I will not go into all the figures that others have mentioned, but I will make this point. It is important to make a “pre-emptive strike” when it comes to health, particularly through the winter fuel payment, which plays a clear role. For every death from cold, there are eight hospital admissions and 100-plus visits to GPs and health centres. When we add that to the figures, we know what we have to do about the winter fuel payment—it helps to avoid lots of those issues, too.
	Elderly care expenditure per head for Northern Ireland is £2,086, while in Scotland it is £2,313 and in Wales it is £2,109. I would also like to make an important point—the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) made this point too—about Alzheimer’s and dementia. In some
	26 years as an elected representative, I can never recall a time when so many people had dementia or Alzheimer’s. We therefore need to enable our senior citizens to enjoy a level of health that will not cost more later on. The winter fuel payment makes that contribution. The Government have stated that they will restore the earnings link for the basic state pension—that was indicated earlier. The income-poverty figures show that 23% of older people live in poverty, while the figure is 16% for the UK. Some 15% of people in Northern Ireland live in severe poverty—the figure is 9% in the UK, up 3% in the last year—while 30% of single women over 75 live in poverty, and 42% of those homes are condemned.
	The winter fuel allowance is the biggest topic in my three advice centres. For those who qualify, the situation is simple. The price of oil has increased—indeed, it has never been as high. If the Government have any intention of reducing the winter fuel payment, balancing the books will not happen. Many OAPs have no income other than the state pension, as I said earlier. This was an issue last winter; it was an issue for me at the parliamentary elections a year and a half ago; it was an issue at the Northern Ireland Assembly elections back in May; and it is an even more critical issue today. I urge hon. Members to support our proposal.

Nigel Evans: I call Mr Weir, who is to resume his seat no later than 18 minutes past 7.

Michael Weir: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I congratulate my friends in the Democratic Unionist party on bringing forward this important debate. Fuel poverty is an important issue for all of us, and it is worth noting that in Scotland 770,000 homes are in fuel poverty and that, for every 5% rise in energy prices, a further 46,000 go into fuel poverty. Clearly, those, such as pensioners, who are on fixed incomes are much more likely to be affected by these escalating prices.
	In an e-mail prior to the debate, the National Pensioners Convention and Greenpeace made the point that the winter fuel payment used to cover one third of a dual fuel energy bill, but it now covers less than one fifth. That shows how much pensioners are suffering. They also make the point, since the Minister raised the issue of cost, that the impact of cold housing on people’s health already costs the NHS more than £850 million a year, while restoring the winter fuel allowance would cost only £695 million. It is thus questionable whether there is much of a saving in what the Government are doing. The rises in energy prices cannot be looked at in isolation because just as they rising, so is the cost of road fuel, food and other essentials. Clearly, those, such as pensioners, on fixed incomes are the most affected.
	In June this year, I received a written answer from the Secretary of State to a question on energy prices and inflation, which showed that in four out of the last five years, the rise in domestic energy prices—whether we use the retail prices index, the consumer prices index or whatever measure—had outstripped the rate of inflation. That was before the latest round of price hikes. The Government’s usual mantra of energy efficiency and switching simply does not wash with pensioners who
	are struggling to pay their bills. The amount that most people can save from switching is not going to make a significant difference to these bills. That is especially true for the poorest pensioners. To get a better deal on energy bills by switching, they have to move to a direct debit tariff, and many of the poorest pensioners do not have bank accounts or simply like to juggle their bills in the month and do not want to see money coming out of their account on a regular day in the month.
	I very much agree that we should insulate our houses and take more measures, but that is a long-term project. What is needed now is relief for our pensioners from ever-escalating bills. In discussing the situation in Northern Ireland, the Minister made it clear that the overall effect of increasing the cold weather payment as against reducing the winter fuel allowance amounted to a cut in the total sums going to pensioners. Frankly, that is irresponsible at a time when prices are escalating.
	It is interesting to note the tendency of some Government Members to question whether there should be a universal winter fuel allowance at all, but I would remind them that in the last Parliament they argued against means-testing for pension credit—correctly, in my view—on the grounds that many pensioners would, through pride, not claim means-tested benefit. The same applies here, and I think the Minister’s figures on the trial project of direct payment of pension credit clearly demonstrate that there needs to be universality in order to get through to pensioners.
	Let me mention one group of special problems for which I suggest there might be cost-free or at least a very low-cost partial solution. It applies to those who are off the gas grid who rely on home fuel oil for their heating—a problem in Northern Ireland and in large areas of Scotland. These people do not get the special tariffs available for those on the grid and, in many of these areas, extending the gas grid is simply not a practical proposition because of the geography of the area. Even worse, in winter time, these people cannot even be sure of the price of their fuel during the time between ordering and delivering, since in many cases a company will not give them a price at the time of ordering—the price was certainly rising high last winter.
	I have previously raised the possibility of allowing these people to receive their winter fuel allowance earlier in the year, which would allow them to fill up their tanks when demand and prices might well be lower. It is not an absolute solution, but it might help in some way. I have raised this with energy Ministers before and I was told that they would consider matters, but nothing seems to have been done. We need to look at solutions like this to alleviate a very serious situation.
	The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) talked about the three pillars, and the Minister rightly said that many of these issues were devolved. That is true, but at least two of these pillars—energy prices and the money that comes through benefits—are not devolved matters. The devolved Parliaments and Assemblies thus have a problem in dealing with fuel poverty.
	From the outset, the Scottish Parliament has been inventive in tackling these issues. All parties were involved in the central heating scheme in the first instance, and now it has moved on. The current Scottish Government’s energy assistance package, which is worth £33 million, has helped 150,000 people on low incomes to reduce
	their energy bills. One in six Scottish homes have been visited for a home energy check, which also looks at the benefits side. We all agree that something needs to be done about this, and almost 18,000 installations have been made.
	The package was originally targeted at pensioners, but has since been extended to help other vulnerable people in these very difficult times and, in addition to helping pensioners, the scheme has been extended to include the disabled, families with young or disabled children, those with severe disabilities and the terminally ill—and it is to be extended to include those on carers allowance, which could benefit up to another 7,000 households. Next year, the £50 million warm homes funds will also begin operation to give additional help to the fuel poor. None of these programmes is cheap; none will ever be cheap. If we go down the road of looking only at energy efficiency, however, we will not tackle the immediate problem. It will take many years before all our homes are energy efficient; the cost of doing it is enormous. Although it is a good thing in the long term, we must also deal in the short term with the immediate problem of getting our pensioners through this coming winter.

Ian Paisley Jnr: At the outset, let me thank all Members who have attended and contributed to the debate. My hon. Friends have agreed with most things, but there have been disagreements on some other issues. That, of course, is the mark of a healthy democracy. We appreciate the contributions of all Members to the debate.
	On Friday this week, my constituent Bill Carson will lead 190 pensioners up the hill at Stormont into the Senate chamber for the second meeting of the Pensioners’ Parliament. It has been a very important Parliament meeting in Northern Ireland, which represents—across all constituencies and across the entire community—the feelings of pensioners and people in the aged sector who have issues to raise with the Government. They will debate the report published in June this year, which deals with all the matters that affect pensioners in Northern Ireland. It is a detailed report and lying behind it is a series of surveys carried out across all constituencies asking thousands of pensioners what issues affected them most and what key matters drove their lives today.
	Consistently throughout this report, the pensioners came back to one thing, and one thing only—keeping warm this winter. Indeed, the response was significant. In the Fermanagh and South Tyrone constituency 83.6% of respondents said that the only thing and key thing they were worried about—their No. 1 priority—was keeping warm in winter and energy prices. In Belfast, it was the same: keeping warm in winter and energy prices were the main concern. In my own constituency of North Antrim, it was the same, as it was in Armagh, County Londonderry, County Tyrone and County Down. Right across Northern Ireland, the response was the same.
	Nowhere is an island in political terms. The reality is that when a message is as consistent as that and comes back like a tsunami, a response must be made. This House has to face the gauntlet that has been thrown down. The Government must answer the question of what they are prepared to do when pensioners from all across the United Kingdom as well as Northern Ireland
	say that the issue affecting them most is the fact that they want to stay warm this winter. One of the easiest ways for the Government to help them to stay warm and assist them is through the winter fuel allowance.
	As some people might say colloquially, “It’s a no brainer”—and it really is a no brainer. I hope that the Government are listening. We are not after argy-bargy with the Government—we can do argy-bargy with them and we have done it with them and other Governments in the past—because that is not what this issue is about. I believe that Members in all parts of the House care passionately about the needs of the elderly, so let us do something about that: let us address the issues simply and straightforwardly.
	The average cost per household of heating oil and electricity in Northern Ireland this year will be £2,114. It is higher in Northern Ireland because more people there have to use heating oil. There is no way around that. All the other mechanisms—improving home efficiency, housing standards and so forth—are fine and dandy, and we will get there one day, but the fact remains that in rural areas 82% of people today rely on heating oil for their homes. The Government have a responsibility to address those people’s needs, and the winter fuel allowance provides them with the easiest, fairest and most consistent way of doing so.
	It should be emphasised that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) said in his opening speech, this is a life and death issue. We can skirt around it and play about with it, but actions have consequences, and the actions that will be taken by those on either side of the House tonight will have their own consequences. I put it to Members that if they support the motion to which my right hon. Friend spoke so ably, they will save lives. When we cut out all the baloney and party politics, the bottom line is simple: lives will be saved if we keep this allowance. Whose side are we on? Are we going to save lives, or is there the potential for our actions tonight, and the actions of others in this place, to lead to the loss of more elderly lives?
	I want to see energy efficiency in our homes, but, as has been pointed out by John Hills of the interim fuel poverty review group, those on low incomes cannot afford the investment that is required to make their homes energy-efficient. Even when the other available benefits are marshalled, it will take some time for us to get energy-efficient homes. I do not want to get sidetracked into all the other poverty issues, but those on low incomes face a triple whammy: the cut in the payments that we are discussing, the hike in energy costs, and the need for their energy-inefficient homes to be heated. We must address the needs of our elderly people as a matter of urgency.
	The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) suggested an extension in the gas grid in Northern Ireland as a possible solution. We should love to see that happen, but there is not sufficient footfall for it to happen quickly. The rurality of Northern Ireland makes it more difficult to achieve. We will get there, but it will take time. This measure addresses the problem now, deals with the position as it is, and allows us to make progress.
	As we were told by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North, £60 million of benefit is unclaimed, sometimes as a result of ignorance but sometimes as a
	result of stubborn pride, and whatever the Government are doing is not enough to encourage people to claim it. We have a solution which is already working, and which gives the Government an opportunity to continue to assist those who are in most need.
	The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) was right to say that the Government would be judged not on the basis of what the previous Government had said and done, but on the basis of what they themselves would say and do. That is the bottom line for the Government tonight. What will they do about this issue? I thank the Minister of State for coming to the House and explaining what the last Chancellor did, what he should have done and what he could have done, but it was convenient enough for him to say all that. What he should say is the right thing: that we—the Government and the House of Commons—will maintain the winter fuel allowance at the higher rate to help pensioners in a way that really works, putting money in their pockets and allowing them to fill their heating tanks, keep warm, and spend the rest of their money on food.

Kate Hoey: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me, and with many other Members, that if this is about a lack of money and about the economic situation—as the Government obviously feel that it is—we should simply say to the European Union, “We will not pay you this extra amount because we would much rather give it to our pensioners, our old people, than send it to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels”?

Ian Paisley Jnr: When I look at some of the Members who are sitting in other parts of the House, I think that this is another issue on which we might unite the House. The hon. Lady is right: where there is a will, there is a way.
	The Minister of State spoke of a baseline, which was all about money. Let me extend the musical metaphor and say “Your baseline was flat, sir, and your ear was not in tune with the needs of the community.” If the House is to be relevant, it must be in tune with the needs of our elderly folk out there. It must ensure that their needs are not only properly addressed, but met. The Minister wanted bells and bouquets for what the Government are doing. I do not mean to be dramatic, but the fact is that the cuts they are proposing will bring wreaths, and the bell will toll for the most vulnerable members of society. It is clear that this cut will not deliver the assistance to pensioners that they claim their other policies and benefits will deliver.
	I was disappointed when the Minister told us—a little disingenuously, I think—that he had been in contact with the Social Development Minister in Northern Ireland. I am sure that that is true, but I understand that the conversation took place a matter of days ago. The Minister has been in office for a year and a half, and ours is the coldest part of the United Kingdom. I am not a cynic, but I am tempted to suggest that the conversation with the Social Development Minister may have been prompted by today’s debate. I hope that if it was, the Minister of State will note what has been said, and will deliver for the House and the people.
	I do not think that we should be sidetracked into discussing other possibilities, such as what could be achieved through gas pricing and energy efficiency measures. We should deal with the issue that is on the Order Paper, which is straightforward and simple: will the Government maintain the winter fuel allowance as the public expect them to, and will they keep the promises that were made at the last election? I believe that that is what is fair and right.

Maria Miller: I thank Opposition Members for raising this important subject. We have had a lively debate.
	Let me begin by emphasising that the coalition Government take the issue of pensioner poverty very seriously. Our record demonstrates that. We pay more than £2 billion in winter fuel payments, and we pay it to more than 12.5 million pensioners, including more than 300,000 in Northern Ireland last year. The payments go to pensioners regardless of their income, and most do not even have to make a claim. I think that Members on both sides of the House agree that the winter fuel payment makes a real difference, ensuring that pensioners can turn up their heating in the knowledge that they will receive the help they need in order to meet their heavy winter bills.
	It is regrettable that the last Administration decided not to provide for a temporary increase to become permanent—to last beyond the year of a general election. People can draw their own conclusions about why a temporary increase in winter fuel payments extended in the year running up to a general election but not beyond. It is most telling that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson), who spoke for the Opposition, failed to pledge to make concrete the previous Government’s temporary increase. I say that because she is a shadow Treasury Minister and if she does not know whether the Opposition would make that permanent, who would?

Cathy Jamieson: Will the Minister accept that it is time that this Government took responsibility for their actions? The decision whether to pay this increase is entirely down to this Government, and it would be irresponsible for anyone on the Government Benches to suggest otherwise. It was not the previous Government but this Government who took the decision on this budget.

Maria Miller: I think the House will draw its own conclusions from the fact that the hon. Lady again failed to take the opportunity to make clear what the Labour party’s policy is on this issue. The coalition Government have made permanent the increase in the cold weather payment from £8.50 to £25. Again, hon. Members on both sides of the House will be pleased to hear that that money is going to the most vulnerable of our constituents. Some 2.7 million pensioner households receiving pension credit also receive the cold weather payment.
	The coalition Government are taking real steps to protect pensioners, which is why one of our first actions was to restore the earnings link with the basic state pension. We also gave a triple guarantee that pensions
	will be increased by the highest of growth in average earnings, price increases or 2.5%. Pension credit is also available for those who have low incomes, and we have continued key support for older people such as free NHS prescriptions, travel concessions and free television licences. For the longer term, we will need to help prevent people from retiring into poverty. Again, our actions are speaking louder than mere words, through the automatic enrolment in workplace pensions.
	Hon. Members have made a strong case as to why fuel poverty is a real issue for many vulnerable people, including pensioners living in Northern Ireland. The differences in Northern Ireland are clear, and hon. Members have made that point in this debate. That is why Northern Ireland receives not only the support from pension credits, winter fuel payments and cold weather payments, which are provided for the rest of the UK, but a block grant of some £10.4 billion in funding for the Executive to address the particular priorities of Democratic Unionist party Members and other Northern Ireland Members. That money goes along with some £6 billion to pay for the cost of social security and pensions. We should not forget that Northern Ireland receives almost 25% more in spend per head of population than England, in recognition of the real issues that individuals living in Northern Ireland face.

Nigel Dodds: The Minister makes a very valid point, but will she also acknowledge that, as we have highlighted in this debate, the people have horrendously higher needs in Northern Ireland, which arise because of ill health, fuel poverty and so on? Our energy prices are also much higher than those in the rest of the United Kingdom, so what she says needs to be put into perspective.

Maria Miller: I understand the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making. Indeed, that is why the block grant is so sizeable and it is important that we recognise that.
	Although we clearly want to address these issues here in Westminster, it is important that we work closely with colleagues in the Northern Ireland Executive. As the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), mentioned, I was in Belfast only last week meeting the Minister for Social Development to discuss child poverty issues in particular. Addressing fuel poverty is a devolved matter for the Northern Ireland Executive, and they are well placed to determine what measures should be in place to meet local needs. Hon. Members will be aware that earlier this year Northern Ireland launched its own fuel poverty strategy, which set out key areas for improving the situation for local people. I hope that after today’s debate the Executive may consider some of the initiatives in England and Great Britain, particularly the obligation on energy suppliers, which could well be other ways to improve things over the water.
	We heard important contributions from right hon. and hon. Members across the House today, but there have been some puzzling absences. Where is the shadow Minister for older people? Where is the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions? We welcome the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, but she is the shadow Financial Secretary—perhaps that is telling in terms of how the Opposition are dealing with this issue.
	The right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) made a number of important points, and he talked about benefit take-up. I hope that he can bring himself to support the work that my Department is doing, through the introduction of universal credit, to improve the working age take-up of benefits. That is slightly different from the issue we are discussing today relating to pensioners, but it will make an important contribution.
	The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun made a number of important points, and I thank her for that. The very existence of the winter fuel payment does help with people’s mental housekeeping and reassures older people that they can afford to turn up the heating, as she recognised in her contribution. However, I must say to her that tackling fuel poverty in Northern Ireland is a matter for the Northern Ireland Executive. We have to make sure that those important devolved matters are dealt with at a local level. As I said, she was not clear about the Labour party’s stance on the winter fuel payment, but perhaps she will clarify it in the closing stages of this debate—or perhaps she will not.
	The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate, talked about the importance of prioritising those most in need and he highlighted the fact that we have reversed Labour’s cut to the cold weather payments. My hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) highlighted the fact that we are dealing with a complex set of factors. I have to be careful now, because I think that I have to correct the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea). He said that we were cutting support for the most vulnerable but that is absolutely not the case. We are reversing Labour’s proposed cuts to the cold—

Nigel Dodds: claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
	Question agreed to.
	Main Question accordingly put.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 205, Noes 280.

Question accordingly negatived.

Judiciary and Fundamental Rights

David Lidington: I beg to move,
	That this House takes note of Unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum of 7 July 2011, the European Union Common Position on Judiciary and Fundamental Rights (Negotiation Chapter 23), relating to EU enlargement: Croatia; and supports the Government’s decision to agree the Draft Common Position at COREPER on 29 June and to adopt formally that agreed position at European Council on 12 July.
	This debate concerns the European Union’s common position on the judiciary and fundamental rights chapter—chapter 23—of the accession negotiations for Croatia. It also concerns the Government’s policy of agreeing that EU common position in Brussels in June and formally supporting its adoption at the Economic and Finance Council on 12 July. During the debate, I hope to bring the House up to date on some of the more recent developments in the Croatian accession process and on the various reports of the European Commission about the improvements that Croatia has made.
	I shall start by addressing the more general question of enlargement before moving on to where Croatia fits within the process. The United Kingdom is, and has been from the start, a strong supporter of EU enlargement as an effective and dynamic agent of change. In a changing world in which economic and political weight is swinging eastwards, the European Union will remain strong only if it is outward-looking and continues to grow. Successive British Governments have believed that membership of the EU should be open to any European country that wants to join and meets the rigorous accession criteria.
	There are three key arguments for our consistent, cross-party support in the House for the process of EU enlargement. The first such argument is one of principle. The European treaties make it clear that membership of the European Union is in principle available to any European country that wants to join and that meets the accession criteria. It is very hard to establish any reasonable ground on which we could say to Spain, Portugal or France that they should be a member of the European Union but to Croatia or another country of the Balkans or eastern Europe that they should not—if they meet the accession criteria. I stress that second element. Support in this country for enlargement goes back a long way. Some 23 years ago, in her Bruges speech of 1988, Margaret Thatcher declared, at time when it was not fashionable or even believable to do so, that it was important for everybody in Europe to remember that Prague, Warsaw and Budapest were also great European cities.

Mike Gapes: Will the Minister also confirm that Istanbul is a European city and welcome the fact that President Gul of Turkey is here this week on an official visit? Does he look forward to the day when Turkey can also take its place in the European Union?

David Lidington: Yes, I certainly support what the hon. Gentleman has said. Labour and Conservative Governments alike have consistently taken the position that we support Turkey’s ambitions to join the European Union. That accession process has helped to drive both
	political and economic reform within Turkey, and we want to see further progress being made at the earliest possible date.

Keith Vaz: I completely agree with what the Minister says. There has been cross-party support for the enlargement process, but when I held his job more than a decade ago there were 12 candidate countries beating at the door of the EU and asking to be admitted. At that stage, quite a lot wanted to join, so why does he think so few countries now want to join the EU?

David Lidington: I bow to the right hon. Gentleman’s experience, because I think he was quite a long-serving Minister for Europe. Part of the answer to his question is that there are now rather fewer European countries outside the European Union than was once the case. However, one thing that is common to the political leaderships of all the countries in the western Balkans is an ambition to become part of the European family of nations. We in the UK sometimes underestimate that strength of feeling. They regard membership of the EU as setting the seal on their democratic development and on the restoration of their place in the European family.

Peter Bone: While we are having a trot around Europe, let me ask about countries such as Moldova that want to join the European Union. Does the Minister agree that what they really want is to join a free trade area rather than some sort of superstate?

David Lidington: In my conversations with Moldovan Ministers I find that they have ambitions for more than just a trading relationship. Certainly, when I have met the Moldovan Prime Minister, Foreign Minister and deputy Foreign Minister, they have stressed to me that they see value in market integration with the single market. However, they also see the move towards meeting European standards on democratic governance, rule of law and respect for human rights as in the interests of the people of Moldova, enabling them decisively to relegate to history their experience of Soviet rule over so many decades. Although Moldova is not a candidate for European membership at the moment, I have said publicly in Chisinau—I think I am still the only British Minister who has been to the British embassy in Chisinau—that we supported Moldova’s work within the Eastern Partnership as a matter of principle and that if it wished to take that further and in due course apply for membership and comply with the demanding accession criteria, the United Kingdom would strongly support and encourage that.
	The second argument for enlargement develops from what I have just said to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone). There is a powerful political case for the enlargement of the European Union. Enlargement helps to create stability, security and prosperity across Europe. We see this most dramatically if we look at the recent history of central and eastern Europe. We have seen how the process of EU accession has helped to entrench democracy, the rule of law and human rights in parts of our continent where those values and traditions were crushed for most of the 20th century.
	If the House contrasts the experience of central and eastern Europe in the 20 years from 1919 to 1939 with the 20 years from 1989 to 2009, it will see the difference that the institutionalisation of democratic reform through
	the EU accession process has made, and made for the good. Although I would happily say to my hon. Friends and to some hon. Members on the Opposition Benches that there are plenty of faults in the way the EU currently does business and the way it is constructed, when we weigh up the value of the European Union and the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union, we need to take account of that rather proud political record in support for the development of a culture of human rights, the rule of law and democratic government in parts of Europe where those traditions have been absent for so long.

Chris Heaton-Harris: Will my right hon. Friend comment on Macedonia, which is keen to join the accession process? Is it not a fact that Croatia or any other country that wants to enter the European Union is signing a pact—a contract—to join the euro? What would be his advice to such countries on doing that at this time?

David Lidington: My advice is that that has to be a sovereign decision for the country concerned. I do not waver in my view that joining the euro would not be in the national interest of the United Kingdom, and I make no apology for having long held that view, but each country must take its own decision. Some countries with small economies, which are, perhaps, very dependent on trade with immediate European neighbours, would find it more difficult to see themselves outside the euro, at least over the longer term, than a country such as the UK. At the end of the day it must be a matter for each accession country to decide for itself in the course of EU negotiations.
	The third argument for enlargement is an economic one and it is—

Matthew Hancock: Before my right hon. Friend moves on to that further point, is there not an important and slightly more domestic political benefit to support for enlargement of the European Union? There are more countries in the European Union that want to see a less deeply aligned European Union and more of a trading union, which we on the Conservative Benches also want to see. The more countries with that view of Europe, the better. Therefore accession countries with that view and that approach to markets should be encouraged.

David Lidington: My hon. Friend makes a very strong point indeed, although it would be a mistake to class all new accession countries as if they were of one mind and part of a bloc. The Government of the Czech Republic, for example, take an approach towards the European Union that on many issues is not dissimilar from that expressed by the United Kingdom Government. With the Slovak Parliament’s controversial debate over the future of the euro, we have seen the strong view that even a small member state is entitled to have a say and not be overruled by a directoire of the larger member states.
	However, I caution my hon. Friend. If one looks at, say, Estonia, the ambition that it had to join the euro, and the celebrations on the streets when it joined the euro—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) prompts
	me from a sedentary position about Poland, which is keen to be in the euro one day, but certainly not to be told what to do by other, older member states. There is a variety of different positions among member states.
	The political value of enlargement is partly that it recognises the truth about the diversity of European political culture. It is important that as the EU evolves and reflects upon its own systems of governance and its institutional set-up, it does so in a way that takes full account of the diversity of European political and cultural experience. The model that may have served six member states in western Europe in the 1950s will not be the right one for a community of 27—soon to be 28—member states encompassing all parts of our continent.
	The third argument for enlargement relates to economic interest. The economic benefits of expanding the single market are significant. British exports of goods and services to the 12 new member states of central and eastern Europe increased over the 10 years straddling their accession by more than two and a half times to over £11.6 billion in 2009. So there are advantages for our businesses and our people, as well as for the businesses and people of the accession countries. In Croatia’s case, meeting the single market rules means that British businesses will be better able to benefit from trade and investment opportunities in that country—for example, in Croatia’s expanding ports sector, its tourism industry and agriculture.

Philip Hollobone: I want to challenge my right hon. Friend on the idea that an expanded Europe is good for security and stability. I declare my interest as a special constable with British Transport police. If one speaks to the British Transport police or the Metropolitan police, they say that every day police officers in London are arresting more and more EU nationals from eastern European countries, particularly Bulgaria, Romania and other accession states, as part of criminalised gangs working in London because London is the biggest, most cosmopolitan city in the European Union. With the EU expanding, the problem of crime on the streets of our capital city is getting worse because of the ease of access across international borders.

David Lidington: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s voluntary work for the British Transport police. I certainly believe that it is important that we ensure that the freedom of movement that comes with membership of the European Union is not applied in a way that can be abused. It is right that somebody who is coming here to take a job—in some cases it will be a job that British people have been unwilling to take on; one talks to a lot of employers who will say that—they should be entitled to do so. If they are prepared to come here, live by the law, work hard, pay their taxes and make a contribution to society, few of us have problems with that. But I completely agree with my hon. Friend. If people seek to abuse the system and have come here to exploit our welfare system or to commit crime, the full rigour of the law should be applied against them.

Peter Bone: Will the Minister give way, on that point?

David Lidington: I will give way once more to my hon. Friend, then I shall make some progress.

Peter Bone: The Minister, as usual, is being extremely generous. Is not the trick to put on a proviso that people coming from new accession countries will need a work permit to come and work in this country? In that way we can ensure that we get people into the EU, without necessarily worrying about flooding the market here for workers.

David Lidington: It certainly was a mistake made by the previous Government that the transitional controls that could have been applied to some of the new member countries were not applied. We are taking very seriously the transitional arrangements that still apply to Romania and Bulgaria. I would also say to my hon. Friend that the process of enlargement and the market integration that goes with that should over time—I accept that this is not an instant process—enable those countries to generate economic growth and employment opportunities themselves that make the sort of migratory pressures from unskilled workers less acute than he identifies them at the moment.
	Further enlargement depends upon countries meeting accession criteria that are both fair and rigorous, and it is important when considering Croatia’s case to recognise that this conditionality has been further developed since the accession of Romania and Bulgaria, learning from the lessons of the accession experience of those countries, and that conditionality is of critical importance to protect the credibility of the enlargement process and to encourage future EU expansion.
	The EU’s approach to negotiations with Croatia was guided by the European Council’s 2006 renewed consensus on enlargement. That was agreed in response to the lessons learned from previous negotiations with Bulgaria and Romania. In particular, it led to the creation of an entirely new chapter, chapter 23, to cover judiciary and fundamental rights. That arrangement, I stress, did not exist in previous accession negotiations. Croatia has therefore been through a much more rigorous accession process, especially over the matters that we are debating this evening, than did either Romania or Bulgaria.
	Chapter 23 focused on ensuring that Croatia has a strong and independent court system, is tackling corruption and organised crime, is protecting fundamental rights and is dealing with the legacy of the Balkans’ wars in areas such as war crimes trials and refugee return. Chapter 23 was opened in June 2010, after the United Kingdom, working closely with partners, secured comprehensive and robust closing benchmarks. These included a requirement that Croatia co-operate fully with the international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.
	The Commission published in March 2011 an interim report that concluded that Croatia had made considerable progress against closing benchmarks for chapter 23 but still had further work to do, and as a consequence of that Commission report, Croatia accelerated its efforts. We agreed with the Commission’s subsequent assessment, set out in the draft common position of June 2011, that over the six years of its accession process Croatia had undertaken significant reform efforts in the area of the judiciary and fundamental rights, that it had worked to improve the independence, impartiality, efficiency and professionalism of the judiciary, and it had improved its handling of domestic war crimes trials, strengthened the fight against corruption and increased Croatia’s protection of fundamental rights.
	But I emphasise that that support for the common position does not mean that we accepted at that point that Croatia had done all that needed to be done, nor indeed had the European Commission made that conclusion. The key judgment is whether Croatia will be able to assume in full the obligations of EU membership from the date of its accession, which is proposed for 1 July 2013. The Commission recommended closing chapter 23 on the basis of its assessment that Croatia’s track record in these areas indicated that the reforms were sustainable and would not slip backwards after the conclusion of negotiations.
	Crucially, the Commission also underlined the importance of Croatia continuing to develop a track record of implementation across the board. This last stipulation is very important, and one for which we worked hard during the negotiations. We secured a number of improvements in the EU common position, building on strong language included in the 24 June European Council conclusions. The key passage in those conclusions reads:
	“Croatia should continue its reform efforts with the same vigour, in particular as regards the judiciary and fundamental rights, so as to be able to assume fully the obligations of membership from the date of accession. Monitoring up to accession of these reform efforts will give the necessary assurance to Croatia and to current Member States.”
	We are determined that Croatia should fully meet EU requirements across the board, and particularly over chapter 23, by the time of accession, and we are determined to see that there is no backsliding. In fairness, Croatian Ministers repeatedly say, in bilateral meetings or at EU gatherings, that they are committed to ensuring that progress continues. During the final weeks of negotiation, we secured agreement to additional monitoring arrangements for Croatia, which will continue right up until its accession. We expect each of the Commission’s six-monthly reports on chapter 23, the first of which was issued on 28 October 2011, to show clear progress. I should say that the report issued on 28 October is still being analysed in detail by officials in my Department, but I undertake this evening to deposit copies of that report in the Library of the House and to write to the European Scrutiny Committee in order to draw its attention to the conclusions of that document.
	A comprehensive monitoring report will be presented to the European Parliament and to the Council in the autumn of 2012, and these six-monthly reports, together with the comprehensive report next autumn, will allow both Governments and Parliaments right across the European Union to assess Croatian progress towards full alignment with the acquis and with European standards by the time of accession.
	Croatia is fully aware that the monitoring measures now put in place enable the Council to take what are termed “all appropriate measures”, as agreed at the 24 June European Council, if issues of concern are identified during the monitoring process. A system of sticks and carrots is built into the pre-accession monitoring process to enable the Commission, on behalf of member states, to keep a very close eye on the detailed progress that Croatia is making and to flag up any concerns that might be discovered about backsliding.
	Croatia is also aware that in order to accede to the EU on the target date of 1 July 2013, her accession treaty must have been ratified by each of the 27 member
	states, including by this Parliament. As the House knows, the Croatian accession treaty will require ratification under the terms of the European Union Act 2011, and that will require primary legislation going through both Houses of Parliament here. It seems to me that Croatia knows that it must address thoroughly all the concerns of the member states if it is to secure that full ratification.
	On the basis of the clear progress already achieved by Croatia, together with this pre-accession mechanism for robust monitoring right up to accession, we agreed to close negotiations on chapter 23. Since the closure of those negotiations earlier this year, Croatia has continued to make progress in implementing the necessary reforms. This was noted in the Commission’s progress report, published on 12 October 2011. I want to highlight the progress that has been made in several areas, which the European Scrutiny Committee identified as important in its 38th report to the House.
	The Commission’s report notes that Croatia has made substantial progress on judiciary and fundamental rights, and that reform of the judiciary has continued. Croatia has continued to demonstrate progress on updating its judicial reform strategy and action plan, and it has also continued to work on strengthening the protection of minorities, with good progress on refugee returns. In support of an autonomously functioning stable judiciary Croatia has, for example, made changes to its Conflict of Interest Act to depoliticise appointments to the supervisory boards of state-owned companies, as well as to membership of the conflict of interest commission itself, and that commission has already received 3,000 Croatian officials’ declarations of assets.

Philip Hollobone: My hon. Friend mentions that progress on refugee returns has been good, but as I understand it, Croatian co-operation has fallen some way short of being full, because whilst the overall case backlog on outstanding refugee return issues has fallen by 10,000, there were still 785,561 to go. Why is that good progress? It seems very small progress to me.

David Lidington: I will move on to that in a moment, because we certainly agree that Croatia has a lot more to do. I do not pretend that everything is fine and dandy, because more needs to be done, but I am saying to my hon. Friend and to the House that Croatia’s continued progress since the closure of negotiations early this year encourages us to be confident in the political resolution of Croatia’s Government and opposition parties to take forward compliance with European standards with the necessary determination and speed.

Keith Vaz: I am grateful to the Minister, who is being extremely generous in giving way to so many Members. One concern that we must address is the tendency for the focus from Brussels suddenly to disappear when a country joins the EU. A lot of time is spent negotiating the acquis, but once countries join no one seems to bother about them. Does he agree that it is important that the monitoring process continues even though those countries are full members of the EU and that there should be some kind of buddy principle that allows some countries to assist others in the process of fully integrating into the EU?

David Lidington: I recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s point, and describing it as a buddy system makes it sound quite cuddly and attractive, but I would not want
	to make routine the experience of the mechanism for co-operation and verification that was invented for the accession of Romania and Bulgaria. Whether one talks with political leaders in those countries or in some of the older member states, one finds a common recognition that that was a very unhappy way for those negotiations to turn out and that it left those two countries feeling that they are being treated as second-class members, even though their accession treaties have been negotiated, signed and ratified by everyone. It has left some of the older member states feeling that the decision to allow Romania and Bulgaria to accede was agreed without all the standards being adequately met.
	The introduction of chapter 23, which was used for the first time with Croatia, has been a significant step forward in trying to address up front, before we get to the end of accession negotiations, let alone ratification of an accession treaty, the problems that have persisted with Romania and Bulgaria that we seek to address through the mechanism for co-operation and verification.
	The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) might already know that we are discussing some interesting proposals from Commissioner Füle, the Enlargement Commissioner, to develop a new approach towards enlargement that would seek deliberately to front-load some of the most difficult elements of an accession negotiation precisely so that an accession state not only can implement challenging reforms, but has time to develop a track record so that we can see the results of those reforms, rather than those being addressed at the last stage of negotiations when questions are inevitably asked about whether the reform will be sustained over a long period of time. It is important that we learn from experience. I do not want us to repeat in future cases the experience of Romania and Bulgaria.
	The Commission’s report also noted substantial progress in the fight against corruption, including continued political commitment and a number of further investigations launched and indictments and court rulings issued, including at high levels. The most high profile case, the trial of former Prime Minister Ivo Sanader for diversion of funds, opened in November this year. However, I want to emphasise that the Government completely accept that Croatia still has more to do. A number of judicial reforms are still at a very early stage. The long-standing issue of case backlogs in old civil cases and enforcement decisions remains a problem, although numbers have decreased. We will be looking for rapid progress once the new enforcement law and public enforcement agency become operational in January 2012.
	Although the handling of domestic war crimes cases has improved, the issue of impunity needs to be thoroughly addressed. We welcome the adoption of a new strategy on impunity that recognises the existence of uninvestigated and unprosecuted crimes and the creation of new dedicated specialist chambers for war crimes trials. In June, criminal charges were raised in 84 such cases. Continued full co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia is also particularly important. We constantly stress that to Croatia and fellow EU member states and remain in contact with Chief Prosecutor Brammertz, whom I met a couple of weeks ago in the Hague, in order to ensure that we are fully up to date with his thinking about the co-operation of the Croatian authorities with ICTY.
	We welcome the Croatian Parliament’s adoption on 21 October of a declaration on the promotion of European values in south-east Europe, which states a firm commitment from Croatia that bilateral issues such as border disputes must not obstruct the accession of candidate countries to the EU from the beginning of their accession process.
	Britain has been helping Croatia to tackle many of the concerns relating to outstanding reform. If the House wishes, and I catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will be happy during the concluding remarks to address that in more detail or to write to interested Members. Bilateral assistance currently runs at nearly £500,000 a year, carefully targeted in particular on some of the judicial and rule-of-law reforms where outstanding work is still needed.
	In conclusion, Croatia has made great progress over the course of its accession negotiations in meeting the rigorous closing benchmarks set for each negotiating chapter. The United Kingdom was also successful in securing robust pre-accession monitoring that will enable this House to maintain a close watch on the further progress that we still need to see. It was on this basis that the Government were able to agree to close negotiations with Croatia and agree a target date of 1 July 2013 for EU accession. Croatia still has more to do over and above that required by closing benchmarks, but the Commission has reported continued progress since the closure of negotiations and we expect Croatia to continue to make swift progress towards finalising its full alignment with EU requirements before 1 July 2013. We have heard from the Commission within the past few days that it will propose that the draft decision on Croatian accession will be agreed at the General Affairs Council on 5 December to enable the treaty of accession to be signed by heads of state and Government at the European Council on 9 December. I shall be writing imminently to the European Scrutiny Committees of this House and the House of Lords to set out the Government’s approach to that draft decision.
	Croatia is a friend of the United Kingdom, but we shall be a candid, honest friend, who will monitor closely Croatia’s evolving track record and speak openly to our Croatian friends about the work that still needs doing.
	We expect the Croatian Government to act rapidly to implement the remaining necessary reforms, and her continued commitment to reform provides an excellent example to the other countries of the western Balkans in pursuing their European future.
	Croatian accession will represent the achievement of an historic goal not only for Croatia, but for the European Union. The enlargement process has encouraged and supported reform and transformation in Croatia, a country now only a few small steps from being a fully prepared member of the EU.
	We now look to Croatia to take those last remaining steps, by which it will have fully met the strict requirements for entry to the European Union, and I commend the motion to the House.

Emma Reynolds: I welcome the opportunity to debate Croatia’s accession to the European Union and, in particular, its progress under chapter 23 on judicial and fundamental rights.
	As the Minister has underlined, there is in the House a broad, cross-party consensus on enlargement. When our party was in government, we supported the path of accession for the western Balkans, and we are pleased that significant progress continues to be made. In effect, the progress is remarkable, given that it is only 16 years since the signing of the Dayton accords, which put an end to the worst outbreak of violence seen in Europe since 1945.
	In the early 1990s, Yugoslav republics collapsed into war, with friends and neighbours pitted against each other in the name of ethnic and religious nationalism. One of the principal objectives and greatest achievements of the European Union has been to put an end to the wars that wrought so much damage on Europe in the first half of the 20th century. It is therefore right that the EU should support the membership aspirations of the western Balkans, and we are proud of the fact that under the previous, Labour Government, Slovenia joined the European Union and the negotiations that Croatia began made significant headway.
	With European Union membership comes responsibility for reform, however, and it is right that any discussion of accession involves detailed and complex benchmarks, so it is testament to the dedication and intellectual rigour of the European Scrutiny Committee that it has concentrated on chapter 23, a highly important area where progress is vital.
	The Committee is right to stress, and the Minister also underlined, that lessons must be learned from the accession of Romania and Bulgaria. That experience led directly to the introduction of the new chapter, which covers a range of areas, including the appointment and independence of judges and prosecutors, tackling corruption, the protection of fundamental rights and, importantly, Croatia’s co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. Each area is crucial to an effective, modern and democratic state that protects its citizens from discrimination and roots out corruption.
	While we were in government, we paid particular attention to progress in that area. We also led the way in putting pressure on the western Balkans to co-operate fully with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. At that time, we were concerned about the Croatian Government’s level of co-operation with the ICTY, and we exerted pressure on them to find and release key military documents from the period in question.
	In April, former military commanders, Ante Gotovina and Mladen Markac, were sentenced by the court for their role in the war. Their convictions are important not only because justice has been done, but because it sends a powerful signal to military commanders everywhere that the international community can and will pursue the perpetrators of war crimes.
	We welcome the recent report of chief prosecutor Brammertz, which states that the Croatian Government are providing “timely and adequate” responses to requests for witnesses and evidence, while expressing disappointment at the “limited progress” in locating the military documents relating to Operation Storm. The Opposition place a high value on Croatia’s continued co-operation with the ICTY. Engaging constructively with the court is a test of Croatia’s willingness to draw a line under its past and to look forwards to a brighter future within the EU.
	We welcome the Croatian Government’s strategy, adopted in February, for addressing impunity. In particular, we welcome the improvements in witness support and the new legislation for four specialised war crime chambers. Although Croatia has clearly made some progress in investigating and prosecuting domestic war crime cases, considerable progress still needs to be made.
	Given that the strategy still needs to be systematically implemented, will the Minister tell the House in his winding-up speech whether he is satisfied that priority is being given to the most serious war crimes cases? Are cases in which the alleged perpetrators were members of the Croatian security forces being investigated and pursued? Are the Government assisting the Croatian Government in that important area?
	We welcome the active role that Croatia is playing in regional co-operation. It is vital that Croatia maintains good relations with its neighbours, and in particular we welcome its support for the membership aspirations of other western Balkan countries. The visit of the Croatian President to Serbia and the Serbian President to Croatia marks an important step in the improvement of relations between the two countries.
	It is vital that Croatia’s significant reforms on the independence, accountability and professionalism of the judiciary are carried through. We welcome the new state school for judicial officials, which will recruit and train judges and prosecutors. That is essential to ensuring that candidates are selected on the basis of merit not patronage. However, the new state school will not produce graduates until 2013. Has the Minister discussed that issue with his Croatian counterpart and is he satisfied that, prior to accession, Croatia will be able to push forward in that area?
	In its most recent report on enlargement, the European Commission states that there has been “substantial progress” on anti-corruption measures. It is, indeed, encouraging that a raft of measures have been implemented as part of the Croatian Government’s anti-corruption action plan, including the introduction of a new police Act to make the police more professional and, crucially, to depoliticise the force. A requirement for Government officials to register their assets has also been introduced. As the Minister said, it is promising that high-level corruption cases are being investigated, including the case against the former Prime Minister, and that the accounts of the party of the current Prime Minister are also being looked into.
	However, corruption is one of the areas of most serious concern in this chapter. The Commission states that more needs to be done to establish a track record in the effective handling of organised crime and corruption and local and high-level corruption cases, including cases related to public procurement and the judiciary. Although it is clear that the Croatian Government are seized of the importance of that issue, will the Minister reassure the House that he is confident that those measures will be effectively implemented prior to accession?
	We welcome the recent comprehensive study and subsequent action plan on the representation of national minorities in the public sector in Croatia. However, as the European Scrutiny Committee and the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) have highlighted, there remains a substantial backlog of housing appeals from those refugees wishing to return and fewer than half the available housing units have been handed over to successful
	applicants. More progress on that issue is needed to provide assurances that the Croatian Government are committed to honouring their pledges to refugees seeking to return.
	On another issue, a recent gay rights parade in Split was attacked and the police failed to protect those on the march. In winding up, will the Minister say whether he has discussed that incident with the Croatian Government, whether he is satisfied that freedom of speech and expression can be secured, and whether discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation is being tackled by the Croatian Government?
	After the experience of the accession of Romania and Bulgaria, we welcome the introduction of this new chapter, as well as the introduction of a new monitoring mechanism. It is clear that once countries become EU members, it is very difficult to apply pressure for improvement and change, so the pre-accession period is incredibly important. Is the Minister satisfied that his Government, and more widely the EU, has sufficient leverage in the period between the signing of the accession treaty in December and accession itself in July 2013? What more can the Government do to help Croatia deliver those changes?
	In conclusion, Croatia’s preparation for accession has been rigorous to date. Both the nature and number of reforms introduced in a short period have been impressive. However, in terms of chapter 23, it is evident that Croatia still needs to demonstrate a track record on implementation and enforcement. We will continue to scrutinise the work of the Government and the European Union in its monitoring of progress during the pre-accession period. It is particularly important to monitor reforms with regard to the recruitment and independence of the judiciary and the measures introduced to tackle corruption.
	Following Slovenia’s accession and given the war that blighted the western Balkans in the 1990s, Croatia joining the EU will be an historic moment. Providing the reforms in this area are carried out and successfully implemented, and providing that the House ratifies the accession treaty of Croatia, we look forward to welcoming Croatia into the European Union.

Andrea Leadsom: I should like to start by putting on the record my congratulations to Croatia on getting this far in its process towards accession to the European Union. I am a big fan of an expanded single market because I genuinely believe that it is in the interests of all EU member states. I share the relief of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) that the aspiration of Balkan countries to accede to the EU has laid to rest some of the final outstanding issues relating back to the tragic war in the Balkans. That can only be good news.
	I want to make a few short remarks about procedures with regard to EU legislation generally and the motion specifically. The European Commission’s assessment of Croatian progress towards achieving its obligations under chapter 23 says:
	“Across the board an appropriate legal framework and the necessary implementing structures and institutions are generally in place, administrative capacity is being continuously strengthened and track records of results have been established or continue to
	be developed, thereby ensuring the overall sustainability of reforms. Provided Croatia continues its efforts and meets the commitments it has undertaken, further concrete results should follow.”
	That is two cheers, in a way. It is clear that Croatia is not there yet, but there is great hope that it will continue to make progress towards the date of its accession. There are all sorts of safeguards by which the EU could start to impose sanctions against Croatia if it does not continue in that work. It would be of enormous benefit to this House if the scrutiny of such scrutiny were to take place more broadly within Parliament prior to coming to the Chamber for a debate on a specific motion.
	In its scrutiny of the proposals, the European Scrutiny Committee concluded that Croatia still has a long way to go before it achieves the standards set by the Commission and noted that Bulgaria and Romania have still not reached those standards since joining in 2007. Although, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, chapter 23 was introduced only in 2010, Bulgaria and Romania could have been expected to have made further progress by now, and there is still the question mark over whether Croatia will make the necessary progress.
	I am aware that my hon. Friend is looking at the general question of parliamentary scrutiny over legislation. On 20 January this year, he said in a written statement to this House that EU scrutiny must be enhanced. Under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), the Conservative European research group wrote to my hon. Friend about the need for enhanced scrutiny, particularly of EU legislation.
	As a final addition to this little trio of ideas, yesterday a group of us went to meet the British delegation of MEPs in Brussels, and they said that they find that the other House is far better than this House at engaging with EU legislation as it comes down the track. That is a great shame.

Martin Horwood: The Liberal Democrats’ international affairs committee also wrote to the Minister on this subject. Would the hon. Lady support one of our proposals, which was for European prospective legislation and documents to be scrutinised by the specialist Select Committees that we already have, as well as by the European Scrutiny Committee, thereby allowing those with expertise in environmental issues to scrutinise environmental legislation and so on?

Andrea Leadsom: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. We are not discussing the broader question of scrutiny of all European matters. This is specifically a debate that is mainly about Croatia, and I therefore hope that the hon. Lady will now come back to that subject. She has got her point on the record, and so has the hon. Gentleman.

Andrea Leadsom: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I accept your guidance entirely. Nevertheless, I would just like to respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood). I do agree that scrutiny, particularly of Croatia—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. The hon. Lady must respond only with regard to Croatia. I hope that she will not respond to the hon. Gentleman’s point about his party’s proposals for scrutiny. We are not discussing that; we are discussing Croatia.

Andrea Leadsom: rose—

Chris Heaton-Harris: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Andrea Leadsom: I will give way to my hon. Friend.

Chris Heaton-Harris: Specifically in relation to Croatia’s accession to the European Union, does my hon. Friend think that it would have been helpful if the Foreign Affairs Committee had had purview over this matter so that an extra dimension could have been brought into this debate?

Andrea Leadsom: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is the proposal that I wanted to put to the Minister. The Foreign Affairs Committee might well have had a useful contribution to make to this debate, as might the Justice Committee. Specifically with regard to Croatia’s accession plans, there are issues with the European arrest warrant, human trafficking, organised crime and so on. As has been said, there are concerns over the accession of some European Union states where those problems have been prevalent. It therefore appears that there might be some benefit if, rather than the current situation where the European Scrutiny Committee is allowed to require or request that specialist Select Committees scrutinise particular legislation, there was a more proactive approach to asking specialist Select Committees to look at legislation in cases such as this before they come to the Chamber. I hope that that point can be applied both generally and specifically to this debate.
	I will certainly support Croatia’s accession to the European Union, but with the expectation that the Minister will look carefully at whether some assessment by Select Committees in advance of this debate might have given Members more to go on in deciding whether we are taking a risk or not.

Michael Connarty: I have been asked by the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee to speak on behalf of the Committee. One reason for that is that the position of Opposition Members on this issue is the same as that of Government Members, particularly in the Committee.
	Some of us do take the trouble to read other Select Committee reports. The Foreign Affairs Committee looked at human rights in the context of enlargement and it made some salient comments that I hope the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) has taken the trouble to read. That work feeds in to the work of the European Scrutiny Committee. We do not just live in a Euro-bubble, but look at broader matters.
	It might be helpful to the House if I put this matter in context by explaining its background and why the European Scrutiny Committee recommended that it should be debated on the Floor of the House, rather than leaving it to go to a European Standing Committee. We have always been concerned about the continuing trend,
	which the Government, despite their promises, have not reversed, of the European Committees not having permanent memberships. If their memberships were permanent, there would be at least be 13 Members on three Committees—that is 39 people—who would consistently take the trouble to look at European matters and build up a body of knowledge. At the moment, the Committee structure is such that people are put on European Committees randomly. They mostly do not turn up to the debates and do not gather the knowledge that they should have.
	The concern is that when Romania and Bulgaria joined the EU in January 2007, it was recognised by Members from all parts of the House that a number of good governance issues had not been addressed. The oddest thing was that the European Commission and the European Council decided that if those countries did not get access in 2007, they would automatically get access in 2008 and become full members of the EU. Basically, the incentive to continue progress, particularly in areas of good governance, ceased for Romania and Bulgaria.
	The European Union therefore had to set up a co-operation and verification mechanism. The Minister has described that as making the Romanians and Bulgarians feel as though they were second-class citizens. The reality is that they should never have been citizens of the EU at all because they were not fit to be members. That is the truth of it. They had to be harried and harassed to take the process seriously, and in fact at one point the EU suspended the financing of one of those countries and refused to allow it to spend any more EU money. It got that bad. Nothing had really been done to improve the situation from 2007.
	A series of benchmarks were set under the verification mechanism to do with the judicial system—we are talking about the judiciary today. In the case of Bulgaria, there was the benchmark of tackling corruption and massive organised crime at the highest level of the country. There were a number of contract murders—not a couple, but 104 was the figure we heard when the Bulgarian Foreign Secretary came before the Committee. Those were organised killings by organised criminals.
	Even now, neither country has reached the point at which the European Commission is able to say that it has what was, and still is, required. I will name those requirements for the record. The Commission does not think that they have an
	“autonomously functioning, stable judiciary, which is able to detect and sanction conflicts of interest, corruption and organized crime and preserve rule of law”.
	That is its present position on Romania and Bulgaria, to different degrees in each country. Nor do those countries have
	“concrete cases of indictments, trials and convictions regarding high-level corruption and organised crime”.
	We heard the feeble excuse from the then Foreign Secretary of Bulgaria that Bulgaria had not actually convicted anyone of any of the 104 killings because the criminals had hired hit-men from Russia, who committed the crime, killed people and then went back to Russia, where they could not be found. That is a terrible indictment of Bulgaria. It is in the European Union, but it has a long way to go before it reaches the benchmarks that the European Scrutiny Committee would have set for it.
	The Commission also believes that those countries do not have a legal system that is capable of implementing the law independently and efficiently.
	With those mistakes having been made, and with the Committee having followed the process very seriously, we did not want a post-mortem, but we wanted to have assurances that those mistakes would not be repeated in the case of Croatia. That was why the new chapter 23 was introduced into the EU accession process, dealing with the judiciary and fundamental freedoms. In the summer of 2010, Croatia’s chapter 23 negotiations were finally opened. As the Minister put it then, agreement was based on
	“rigorous benchmarks in the areas we want”.
	Before the chapter could be closed, that
	“comprehensive and robust set of benchmarks”
	would need to be met, covering judicial transparency, impartiality and efficiency; tackling corruption; protecting minority rights; resolving outstanding refugee return issues; the protection of human rights; and, crucially, full co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. Croatia would need to show a track record of implementation across all those areas, to avoid the mistakes of Romania and Bulgaria.
	The common position that we are discussing tonight is the European Commission’s assessment of Croatia’s progress. It recommended that no further negotiations were required, and underlined the importance of Croatia continuing to develop a track record of implementation across the board. It was formally adopted—without discussion, I might add—at the July European Council. I find it quite concerning that there was not in fact a fundamental and deep debate at the European Council about that assessment, because it shows that people may once again be taking their eye off the ball. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the former Europe Minister, pointed out that once countries are in the EU, it seems that the process of vigilance slips away. It is worrying that that might be happening in this case, if the Council cannot even discuss such an important decision at its meeting.
	In endorsing the common position, the Secretary of State for Justice and the Minister for Europe made much of the irreversibility of the process, and of the monitoring that would be undertaken during the two years before Croatia could accede. I do not think the EU’s record is quite so good that we can believe that the process is irreversible.
	I share the ambition for all the western Balkans to become part of the EU, and all the things that the Minister has said about the benefits of that for trade, democracy and human rights are to be applauded and worked hard for. However, Croatia has a border of about 1,000 km with other parts of the western Balkans. When I met the Serbians recently, and when I have met people from Bosnia-Herzegovina and from Macedonia, where I went with the Committee, they expressed deep fears about what lies on their border and what is going on in the rest of the area. When I met the Serbians, they pointed fingers at other countries, as did the Bosnians. The reality is that this is a serious concern for anyone who is particularly worried about the ability of people to use Croatia as an access to Europe. It is one of the trade routes for human trafficking, for drugs and for other matters that afflict the rest of the EU.

Philip Hollobone: The hon. Gentleman has hit the nail on the head, because there will be a massive expansion of the common external frontier with Croatia’s accession, as there was with the accession of Bulgaria and Romania. One of the biggest challenges facing the EU and the UK—this is where everybody comes, because London is the biggest, most cosmopolitan city in Europe—is the lack of border controls on the EU boundary. The demands on accession countries to have secure borders are far too weak.

Michael Connarty: I think what we have here is a question: should we fear accession and therefore lock countries out of the EU, or should we address that concern properly, so that we can welcome countries into the EU but make sure that we give them the resources to secure those borders? I have recently been to Frontex with the European Scrutiny Committee, and it says, “Do not rely on Frontex to protect EU borders.” It is a small organisation that basically works on intelligence—it has some quick reactive ability but not the massive resources required.
	We need to make sure that the Croatians are at one with us on this. We need to ensure either that they have the resources or that we give them the resources, so they can make sure they have a secure border and can protect themselves against worries of criminality coming into their territory, just like anyone in London or any other part of the EU.
	The European Scrutiny Committee took the view that it is plain that Croatia still has much to do over the next two years. If our ambition is to have Croatia in the EU, we must ensure that we resource and support it. To have Croatia in and expand the borders without those protections leads to the criticisms made by the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) and many ordinary citizens—that the more we expand Europe, the more we threaten to infect our security, human rights and peace.
	The reality is that despite four years of post-accession assistance and monitoring under the co-operation and verification mechanism, the Committee is still looking for that protection in respect of Bulgaria and Romania. We do not want to see Croatia added to that by not being properly resourced and supported.
	The Committee noted in particular that the process of systematically tackling war crimes appears to have barely begun. Judging from the latest report by the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Croatian co-operation is still some way off being described as “full”. Although the overall case backlog of returning refugees, which the hon. Member for Kettering mentioned—I will cite the same figure he did—has fallen by a further 10,000, some 785,561 cases are still to be dealt with, which is a massive way to go.
	In sum, the Committee said that a great deal of further implementation would need to be accomplished by July 2013 if Croatia was to be able to demonstrate a track record that indicated it was truly ready for accession. I noted that the Minister said it looked as though the final decision would be ready for signature on 9 December. It is a matter of concern when the European Commission gives itself a target. Early on, it was saying that the earlier succession date for Croatia would be the end of 2011. It is determined to deliver that, regardless of concerns that might be expressed, so its promises will turn into solid work and a fruitful result for the EU. It is
	quite clear that it is going for a 2011 accession and is determined to have it. No one seems to be demanding a decent discussion in the European Council about that.
	We are in the position at the minute where the Minister has said that he has secured improvements in the EU’s composition. I look forward to him putting his note in the Library and sending it to the European Scrutiny Committee so we can see the detail, but he said basically that “appropriate measures” proposed would be subject to qualified majority voting. Qualified majority voting means that any further measures can be agreed without anyone having a veto, so we are basically giving away the final say in stopping the process by the date that has been given—9 December. I hope people realise that that is what the Government are doing. Any further measures can be completely and utterly forgotten about and we can do nothing about it. The Committee felt that if this was strong language, it strongly suggested that the deal was already done, and that even if it was not, the lengthy and unproductive experience of the co-operation and verification mechanism in Bulgaria and Romania was hardly encouraging.
	The Minister for Europe said that chapter 23 was an alternative to the co-operation and verification mechanism, so I hope he will say a word or two about what happens if Croatia turns out to be another problem added to the EU rather than one that has solved its problems. I hope that it has solved its problems. I have warm feelings towards the people I have met in the political class in that country who desire to be in the EU and to bring all its benefits to their country, but we have to worry about things that are not, at this moment, quite as we would want them in a full EU member state.
	All in all, there appeared to the Committee to be loud and unwelcome echoes of those earlier accession processes —chapter 23 notwithstanding—and further confirmation that what had been judged most important was not adhering to appropriate conditionality prior to accession. We made that point again and again. If conditionality was applied, it should be easily verifiable: when it is reached, people should come in, but if it is not reached, we should not simply hope that they will get there eventually after they come in.
	Although the eventual accession treaty will require the approval of the House, the Committee felt that the House should be given the opportunity now, at the beginning of the process, to debate this issue, vital as it is to the integrity of the accession process. I am sorry that so few Members are taking part in this debate, because this is the next major change to this Parliament’s relationship with the European process, and I would have hoped that more people would have come to air their views.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I remind hon. Members that this is a timed debate that is due to end at 22 minutes past 9, and that I shall want to give a few minutes to the Minister to say a few words in response. I ask Members to bear that in mind so that we can fit everybody in.

David Nuttall: Although I appreciate that as usual with these matters the accession of Croatia is essentially a done deal, I want to raise one
	or two concerns about the accession process and the consequences that agreeing to Croatia joining the European Union will have on the United Kingdom.
	It is anticipated that the formal accession agreement will be signed at the European Council meeting scheduled for 9 December, but it appears that EU leaders are effectively taking it on trust that Croatia will complete the necessary preparations before it is formally allowed to join on 1 July 2013. As my right hon. Friend the Minister said, however, Croatia needs to do a lot more. Paragraph 7 of the explanatory memorandum, which quotes the Commission’s own assessment, spells out that further efforts are needed from Croatia in order to improve the independence, impartiality, efficiency and professionalism of its judiciary, and that only if the commitments made by Croatia are met will that country be ready.
	As the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) spelled out in his clear speech, it is obvious that whatever processes were in place when Bulgaria and Romania were allowed to become members of the EU, the checking mechanism in advance did not work. Now, years later, there are still problems with those countries. It is to be hoped that the checking mechanism between now and July 2013 will be slightly more rigorous than it was for Bulgaria and Romania.
	In principle, I have nothing against any country wishing to join the EU, if that is what the country and its people wish, but I have concerns if the admission of a new member state will adversely affect the interests of the United Kingdom. So far, I have seen nothing about how much Croatia might contribute to the EU budget. Indeed, some might be forgiven for thinking that Croatia’s accession will just mean the equivalent of yet another hungry mouth to feed. The European Commission has recently proposed the expenditure of an additional €13.1 million to deal with Croatian accession, to be spent on such things as Croatian translations and, of course, opening a new office in Croatia.
	The accession of Croatia will mean that there will be over 4 million more citizens within the borders of the European Union. As we know only too well, following the accession of other eastern European countries to the European Union, a citizen of a member state has the right to take up employment in any other member state. Once in employment, he or she has the right to reside in that member state and is also entitled to certain welfare provision.

Philip Hollobone: Does my hon. Friend recall the difficulty that Her Majesty’s Government are currently facing with European nationals coming to this country who are not seeking employment, but who declare themselves to be self-employed and, through that mechanism, access benefits that Her Majesty’s Government give out? With 4 million new EU nationals effectively created by this new accession, that is bound to add to the problem.

David Nuttall: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. He raises a problem that will only be exacerbated by the accession of Croatia. I would be grateful to know what specific transitional arrangements are being put in place in respect of Croatian nationals wishing to come to the United Kingdom and, in particular, for how long such controls will be in place.
	Furthermore, I am concerned that yet another treaty will be required to provide for the accession of a new entrant to the European Union, for which we, the United Kingdom, appear to be getting absolutely nothing back in return—and needless to say, without consulting the British people.

Martin Horwood: Does the hon. Gentleman accept, however, that British exports to Croatia currently amount to some £283 million a year? In general, the experience with other acceding countries has been expanded trade with those countries, which has helped British jobs, prosperity and economic prospects.

David Nuttall: That may well be the case, but I see no reason why we could not have negotiated a free trade deal with Croatia many years ago. Indeed, the question could have been asked of the previous Labour Government: if Croatia has so much trade with this country, why did we not negotiate a free trade deal with it a long time ago?
	Let me quote what the Prime Minister said about getting something back from accession treaties. In a speech helpfully entitled “A Europe policy that people can believe in”, which he made a little over two years ago, on 4 November 2009, when he was the Leader of the Opposition, he said that
	“we will want to negotiate the return of Britain’s opt-out from social and employment legislation in those areas which have proved most damaging to our economy and public service…We will want a complete opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights.”
	He added that an agreement would be negotiated
	“limiting the European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction over criminal law to its pre-Lisbon level, and ensuring that only British authorities can initiate criminal investigations in Britain.”
	Crucially, he made it clear that
	“we will propose that these British guarantees are added as protocols to a future accession treaty,”
	which is exactly what we are discussing this evening. I know that our negotiating team will have been well aware of those crystal-clear commitments.
	In closing, may I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to confirm that those guarantees were proposed and to say what the response was? If they were not proposed, why not? If they were proposed and the response was—let me say—not entirely positive, did we indicate that we would withhold our veto if our polite proposals were not granted? After all, article 49 of the Lisbon treaty—which was the reason why that speech was given in the first place—which deals with accession treaties, specifically states that accession treaties deal with
	“conditions of admission and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the Union is founded which such admission entails.”
	It should be argued therefore that the granting of these British guarantees is something that the admission of Croatia entails: without them, the accession could not take place, because Britain would use its veto.

Mike Gapes: I shall try to be brief. I do not think that the accession of a democratic NATO ally, which has had a democratic change of Government and has been transformed as a country over the last 11 years since the death of Franjo Tudjman—
	a country that is dynamic, that has young people who are outward looking and want to be part of modern Europe, and a country that also has a very good football team and a manager in Slaven Bilic who once played for West Ham United—is a country that should be held hostage for an internal debate in the Conservative party over Eurosceptic or Europhobic hostility.
	I believe that we should welcome Croatia. An enormous transformation has taken place in the country over recent years, partly through its own efforts but also because of the aspiration to join the European Union. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) said some harsh things and some true things about what happened with Romania and Bulgaria, but I do not think that we should hold back Croatia on the basis that the country is like those two other countries were in 2006. It is not. Croatia is much more developed politically and in many other ways. It would not be right on account of some bad experiences before this new procedure was brought into effect to damage the Croatian aspiration.
	I believe, too, that it is important in looking at these issues that we look at the context. We are not dealing with Croatia alone. What we are doing is sending a clear signal that it is not just Slovenia among the countries of the former Yugoslavia that can join the European Union, as we are open to all the other five states—Serbia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo—and, indeed, to Albania. It has its own problems, but if we are to have the western Balkans stable, secure and developed with a community of trade and partnership, all those countries have to be in the European Union at some point. It would be very dangerous if there were a hole in part of southern Europe, with a country or several countries out of the political process, out of our politics and our pluralistic approach.
	I say to the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) that the accession of Croatia will bring in a democratic, pluralistic, young and dynamic country that wants to be part of the modern European Union. The EU is still attractive to many people precisely because of that, and it is time that Members of all parties started to make that case to the British public for the future. We need a dynamic Europe; we need to look at Europe as an asset for this country, and we should stop getting obsessed and gazing at our own navel.

John Hemming: I aim to be very quick. I found chapter 23 very interesting, as it is the first time that that chapter has been used for the accession of a country. We have perhaps now hit the Groucho Marx threshold for Europe—that we would not be allowed to join the EU because our standards are not high enough to do so. It is somewhat complacent to imply that the standards of our judicial system are always higher than those in Croatia. I spent some time comparing and contrasting the case X v. Croatia and RP and Others v. the United Kingdom. If I have enough time, I will come back to that later.
	If we look through the document outlining the EU’s response, we find the following statement:
	“The EU underlines the importance of Croatia improving publication of and access to final court decisions both in the
	interests of the development of case law and consistent judicial practice, and in view of wider public dissemination.”
	Well, the UK has a massive problem here. Many judgments are not handed down by the judge—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. That is not relevant to our debate, which concerns the documents before us about Croatia. I would be grateful if, in the few minutes left to him that will enable the Minister to reply, the hon. Gentleman stuck to this evening’s subject of debate.

John Hemming: I think it important to examine the issues raised by chapter 23, however, and to compare X v. Croatia with RP and Others v. the United Kingdom. In the former case, a mother’s mental capacity was removed from her and she was told that she had no locus in the Croatian courts. She had a second opinion, which was taken through the whole Croatian court system. The domestic court system was involved in exactly the same way in the latter case, but the woman had no second opinion. In my view, the Croatian system is far better.
	I highlighted the issue of judgments in the accession document. There is also the question of the anti-corruption commission. The document states:
	“The EU also calls on Croatia to ensure full implementation of its system for monitoring and verification of assets declarations of public officials and judges”.
	According to the Groucho Marx test, this is now a club that we would not be allowed to join, because we do not operate that sort of system here.
	I think it complacent to assume that countries such as Croatia are behind the United Kingdom. The chapter 23 requirements have already pushed Croatia into doing things that we do not do here. The hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) may be pleased to find that in future years we might be expelled for not complying with the conditions with which Croatia complies, but I do not take the same view as him on the European Union. I think that extending the EU is a good idea. Most of the people who argue that we should leave it argue that we should be in the European economic area, which allows freedom of movement throughout Europe. I also disagree with the hon. Gentleman about whether people qualify for habitual residency as a consequence of declaring self-employment, because I do not think that such a declaration qualifies people for habitual residency immediately.
	I think that we should consider not just Croatia but whether we satisfy the conditions in chapter 23, but given that I cannot cite any examples of how we fail to satisfy those conditions, I will leave that to the Minister.

David Lidington: I shall not have time to respond to all the points that have been raised, but I undertake to write to Members who have asked detailed questions, and to place copies of the letters in the Library of the House.
	Many of the concerns that have been expressed about Croatian accession derive, understandably, from the experience of Romania and Bulgaria, but I think that there are important differences between the two instances. The earlier problems arose because difficult issues involving
	justice were not tackled in a systematic manner, upfront, at an early enough stage in the accession negotiations. The process that we are debating this evening was deliberately designed to enable us to learn from the failures of that experience. The decision that must be made by the European council in December—this deals with the point made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty)—is not whether to admit Croatia to the European Union immediately, but whether by July 2013, on the basis of the evidence that we have so far and the intent declared by the Croatian leadership so far, Croatia will be in a position to move smoothly towards accepting all the responsibilities of EU membership.

Michael Connarty: Will the Minister give way?

David Lidington: Very briefly.

Michael Connarty: Will there be a veto before 2013, after December?

David Lidington: Between the signing of the accession treaty and Croatia’s joining the European Union, we shall have the process of pre-accession monitoring that I have described, as well as the three safeguard clauses that are written into the treaty and are powerful mechanisms for ensuring that Croatia continues to make the progress that it has promised. Finally, all 27 members of the EU—including this Parliament—must vote to ratify Croatian accession, which in this instance means primary legislation. To inform its judgment on whether Croatia has met the standards required, the House should have access to the sequence of monitoring reports from the European commission and the reports from the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. Therefore, when this House takes the decision on whether to ratify Croatian accession, it will have available to it the evidence about the progress that Croatia has still to make.
	I believe that Croatian accession will provide enhanced economic opportunities for British business, as well as for the people and businesses of Croatia, and the political gain of seeing an important country in the western Balkans brought firmly within a European political system based on the rule of law and democratic rights. We have seen too much bloodshed and warfare in the Balkans to be content to shut them outside the door and see the problems of organised crime, people trafficking and illegal immigration persist indefinitely. The accession process is our best chance of getting those problems sorted to the benefit of us all. I believe that the way forward is that accepted by the Government in June this year, and I hope to have the support of the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House takes note of Unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum of 7 July 2011, the European Union Common Position on Judiciary and Fundamental Rights (Negotiation Chapter 23), relating to EU enlargement: Croatia; and supports the Government’s decision to agree the Draft Common Position at COREPER on 29 June and to adopt formally that agreed position at European Council on 12 July.

Daylight Saving Bill (Money)

Queen’s recommendation signified

Mark Prisk: I beg to move,
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Daylight Saving Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
	(1) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by a Minister of the Crown or by a government department, and
	(2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.
	If I may, on behalf of the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey), who is responsible for consumer affairs, I wish to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) for her tireless work on the Bill. I also thank her for working constructively on a number of proposed amendments, which mean that I can now confirm the Government’s intention to support the Bill on an amended basis.
	The House last debated the Bill on 3 December 2010 when, despite the Government’s Opposition, it received its Second Reading. Altering the clocks is something that we have thought about long and hard, and, as the Prime Minister has said, it is an issue that needs consensus right across the country. The amendments that we are seeking address our earlier concerns, including on the need for UK-wide consensus as to any change. Accordingly, the Secretary of State will be required to consult the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales, and to obtain the consent of the devolved Administration in Northern Ireland to any proposed trial. I wish to emphasise that the Government would not expect to introduce a trial if there was clear opposition in any part of the UK. A further amendment we propose is that the “independent commission” be changed to an “independent oversight group”, whose role would be to advise the Secretary of State on the preparation of any report.

Philip Hollobone: The Government’s interest in this legislation is welcome, even if a little late and even if forced by a Division in this House, which they opposed. Why has it taken them 11 months to bring this money resolution before the Chamber, given that the common practice in years past was that once the House had made a decision on the Second Reading of a Bill a money resolution would be introduced within two or three weeks?

Mark Prisk: As I said, we wanted to make sure that we gave this careful consideration, because this is a complex matter. [Interruption.] I say to my hon. Friends that I have seen this matter brought to this Chamber four separate times in the 10 years that I have been in this House, so it is right that we give it due consideration.

Peter Bone: Will the Minister give way on that very point?

Mark Prisk: Not at the moment, because I wish to conclude the point that I was in the middle of making—I hope that my hon. Friend will bear with me. As we intend to seek to amend the Bill, it would have some relatively small expenditure implications. Our rough estimate of
	the amount of expenditure that would be needed is a figure of up to £750,000, which we think would be for the cost of researching and reporting on the potential benefits of trialling the advancing of clocks—that is obviously what the Bill seeks to achieve. Naturally, as it is also fair to point out, a subsequent proportional report may well be required on the monitoring and evaluation of any such experiment. The Bill, in its current form, would be likely to involve somewhat more expenditure than that, and the production of a report within three months of an Act being passed may well add to additional costs.
	However, I must emphasise to the House that there is no guarantee that any trial advancement of the clocks will happen. We cannot rush that decision. A considered process is required, the starting point of which—this is the essence of the point that has been rightly made—is that there should be a proper robust assessment of the likely costs and benefits. On that basis, although the Government do not enter lightly into any expenditure, as I am sure you will understand, Madam Deputy Speaker, the expenditure in this case is justified and I commend the motion to the House.

Rebecca Harris: It will not come as a surprise to anyone that I support wholeheartedly the Government’s request for money to be provided by Parliament in respect of the Daylight Saving Bill. First, I want to put on record my great thanks to the 94 Members of Parliament from across the Chamber who voted in support of its Second Reading nearly 12 months ago.
	As the Minister said, this has not been a time of complete inactivity for the Bill. Negotiations have been ongoing between me and the Department to find amendments that would allow the Bill to progress while maintaining the spirit of the original. The Bill principally provides for a robust Government study of the likely effects, good or bad, of advancing our clocks forward by an hour and whether the nation as a whole would be better served by that. Tonight’s debate reflects the fact that the Bill will cost the Government money, but the potential benefits to the UK economy and the public purse could be enormous.
	Proponents of the change argue that it could prevent more than 80 fatalities on the UK’s roads every year and create considerable economic benefits, including 80,000 extra jobs and £4.5 billion in new domestic tourism revenue alone. It might also reduce our heating and lighting bills, which would be extremely welcome at this time, increase participation in sport and recreation and help tackle our growing obesity epidemic, as the recent report from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine has suggested. It has also been argued that it could reduce crime and the fear of crime as well as improving quality of life, particularly for older people.
	If such a simple measure as not turning our clocks back one autumn could really achieve all those benefits, I submit that it would be a scandal if the Government did not devote some resources—primarily civil service time and energy—to investigating it.

Nigel Dodds: Does the hon. Lady think that the benefits she has outlined would be spread equally throughout all parts of the United Kingdom?

Rebecca Harris: I do not know the answer to that question, which is why I am calling for the Government to do a comprehensive review. The proponents of the measure tell me that the benefits would be spread equally throughout the United Kingdom, particularly those on the road casualty figures.
	Personally, I would try to claim that I am entirely agnostic on whether we should advance the clocks, although some might not believe me. My primary aim throughout has been to advance the debate through a review. The proposals in the Bill, or something similar, have been debated in the House repeatedly over the years. Some might say that the somewhat sterile arguments have been rehearsed again and again on both sides in what seems a little like Parliament’s own Groundhog day.
	This time, I am pleased to say, the debate has advanced slightly further than usual, as the Bill passed Second Reading. I attribute that to the excellent support of the growing Lighter Later campaign in the country. The argument is also clearly less polarised than it used to be. Organisations such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents in Scotland have called very strongly for the measure and the traditional resistance of the farming community also seems to have subsided. The National Farmers Union Scotland now fully supports a study of the potential change.

Thomas Docherty: I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way and I am grateful that a Member of the Scottish National party has finally got around to joining us—perhaps they are on a different time from us. I met NFU Scotland very recently and it is clear that it supports not the idea of changing the time but a study to evaluate the issues. Is the hon. Lady clear on that point?

Rebecca Harris: I am entirely clear on that point and that is precisely what my Bill intends to do. NFU Scotland has also intimated that if the benefits in other parts of the country clearly outweighed the disbenefits to its members, it would not stand in the way.
	In Committee, as the Minister mentioned, I and the Minister responsible for the Bill will table a number of amendments that will give the relevant Departments flexibility to minimise the financial burden of the Bill. They will also recognise our asymmetric devolution settlement. The power to change time zones is devolved to only Northern Ireland and not Scotland and Wales, so the devolved Administrations will be consulted at every step, including being asked for evidence for analysis that is specific to their geography and economy. The Bill will not and was never intended to force time change on anyone without consensus in the UK as a whole.
	Although it seems to have taken a surprisingly long time for the Bill to reach this stage, I believe that the result will be a better and, I hope, more effective piece of legislation, which recognises the concerns that the Government and others have had about it whilst retaining and in some ways strengthening the analysis and available
	evidence. Given the possible benefits that I and others have identified, I believe that the measure warrants further investigation. I commend the motion to the House.

Anne McIntosh: I rise to oppose the money resolution and I welcome this opportunity to state why I believe the Daylight Saving Bill is a complete misnomer. There is no daylight saving. All that is proposed in the Bill is that the hours of darkness be moved further into the morning. I am responding, Madam Deputy Speaker, to the arguments that have been put by the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris).

Angus MacNeil: The hon. Lady makes the salient point that there will be no more daylight. What is actually happening is that people are being moved into the darkness. Clocks started off measuring time and ended up governing people’s lives, and people are going to find—as they found 30 or 40 years ago—that they will be living their lives in the early part of the day in darkness. When push came to shove at that time, the vote in this House was 366 votes to 81. That was not just Scottish Members but Members from all over the UK. Once they had experienced it, they would not have it again.

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Perhaps it would be timely for me to remind the House that we are not debating the Bill itself or the merits of the Bill. We are debating a money resolution to commission a study that will look at the evidence. I will rule Members out of order if they try to re-debate the Bill. That is not the purpose of this money resolution.

Anne McIntosh: I simply submit, Madam Deputy Speaker, in response to the points made by the Minister and the promoter of the Bill, that there would be no benefits and that the cost estimate in the money resolution of £750,000 is a conservative estimate that covers only the cost of the research. The Minister has not put to the House this evening what any potential costs to other Government Departments or local authorities would be. It is disingenuous to say that it would not put lives at risk to have darker, colder mornings and I regret that we are not having this debate on the money resolution in January or February when mornings are at their darkest. It is true that the evenings are getting lighter in January and February, but the mornings are most certainly getting darker.

Peter Bone: My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, and I agree that the Minister was woefully lacking in not telling us what the full cost would be. However, does my hon. Friend agree that these are matters for debate in Committee and Third Reading and that it would be normal to let a money resolution go through so that the debate in principle could occur elsewhere?

Anne McIntosh: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making those points, but I have heard for the first time this evening that the Government support this Bill. My understanding was that that was not the position—and
	that was from the Prime Minister down. I think this is the first occasion on which the House has been informed that the Government now back the Bill on the basis of amended proposals in my hon. Friend’s Bill, which will now proceed to a Second Reading.

Dawn Primarolo: Order. The Bill is not having a Second Reading. This is a money resolution and the Bill has had its Second Reading. The content of the Bill has been discussed; this is a money resolution to provide for a study. I have already pointed that out to the House and to the hon. Lady and I would be grateful if Members would stay in order.

Anne McIntosh: I am most grateful for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. As a result of the money resolution going through this evening, the Bill will pass to the Committee stage. Were the House to reject the money resolution this evening, that would not prevent the Bill from proceeding to Committee. It would allow the Government to do a more thorough account of what the total costs would be. Perhaps the Minister responding at the conclusion of this little debate will address my particular concerns about what the cost will be to local authorities in England.
	We on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee have called for evidence on the potential effects on rural communities and farms. The Minister and the House will accept that it is all very well to consult the devolved Assemblies and Parliaments, as the Minister informed the House, but remote areas such as north Yorkshire, Cumbria, Northumbria and other parts a long way from Essex and the south-east will not have the opportunity to be consulted.
	We had the trial from 1968 to 1971. It was resoundingly rejected, as the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) so eloquently stated, and I do not believe that there is any compelling argument for subjecting the country to a further trial when, as we understand from the Government and as I entirely accept, we are living through a time of economic crisis. Will the Minister inform the House where the sum of £750,000 is proposed to come from in his departmental budget?

Nigel Dodds: The hon. Lady is making a number of very good points. Is it not odd that after we have just had a debate on the winter fuel allowance and been told that there is absolutely no money available to pay our poorer pensioners to help them stay warm this winter, the Government are coming forward with £750,000 to fund a study on an issue on which they know there is no consensus across the United Kingdom?

Anne McIntosh: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that point. I do not want to see a north-south divide on the issue. I want the people of north Yorkshire to feel that their voice is being heard—[Interruption.] The Scots are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves. I shall leave time for colleagues to contribute.

Thomas Docherty: I shall keep my remarks brief as a number of Members on both sides of the House wish to speak.
	I am open-minded about what we do ultimately, but I have some questions on the money resolution that I hope the Minister can address. As my colleague, the Chair
	of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee said, the Committee will shortly be taking evidence on the merits and demerits of switching the start of the day. Do the Government propose to wait until the Committee has had a chance to consider the evidence before embarking on a significant spend of money?
	I see that the Under-Secretary of State, Scotland Office, and the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, are present to hear the debate. I will not dwell on why there is an Under-Secretary of State for Scotland and a Minister of State for Northern Ireland. Do the Government expect the Wales Office, the Scotland Office or the Northern Ireland Office to incur expenditure as part of the consultation? Will the Minister also confirm whether any of the devolved Administrations—the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies —would be expected to incur costs as part of the consultation that would be ongoing?

Angus MacNeil: If indeed there were any costs, surely if this measure originated in Westminster, those costs should be met at Westminster.

Thomas Docherty: The hon. Gentleman teases me down an avenue which if I were to pursue and consider why the Scottish Parliament would seek even more money from this place when it is more than amply recompensed for the jobs that it is asked to do, you, Madam Deputy Speaker, would robustly close me down.
	I hope that the Minister can give some clarity. I hope that he has also heard today that this is not a Scotland versus England issue, but an argument across all four nations of the United Kingdom.

Angus MacNeil: rose —

Thomas Docherty: The hon. Gentleman was slightly late, but I appreciate that he was on different time.

Angus MacNeil: I checked the clock; I was two minutes late. But the substantial point is that the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. This is not a north versus south or an England versus Scotland issue. Indeed, I feel quite an English nationalist in the midst of this debate, having to represent many of the good people of England who lived through the experiment of the late ’60s and early ’70s , and who write to me with their concerns looking for a voice. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct when he says that this is not a north versus south or a Scotland versus England issue.

Dawn Primarolo: Very interesting. The hon. Gentleman should face the Chair when he speaks so that I can hear him. However, I heard what he said and now that he has made his point I would like Mr Docherty to return to the money resolution.

Thomas Docherty: I am most grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I will stick to your guidance.
	It is welcome that the Government are restricting the total sum that they believe they will spend. However, I agree with the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) that it is interesting that this afternoon Tory MPs voted against spending money on issues that really matter to people such as winter fuel payments. Will the Minister give a guarantee to the House that
	£750,000 will be the total expenditure of all Departments, not just his own, and the devolved Administrations, and that we will have a speedy and just resolution to the issue.

Peter Bone: Will the Minister in his reply say how much of the money that he has referred to relates to paragraph (1) of the motion and how much relates to paragraph (2)? In addition, as has just been said, may we have the total cost, not just the limited cost?
	I would normally argue that we should vote specifically on the money resolution and how much it will cost the Exchequer, and if this related to a Government Bill, that would be quite in order. But this relates to a private Member’s Bill, and by tradition money resolutions automatically follow Second Reading. If a Member had managed to overcome all the hurdles and get enough Members here to pass a Bill on Second Reading, which I would probably not have voted for, they should have the right to go into Committee, have the Bill debated there and brought back to the House for a Third Reading, where, if Members so wished, they could defeat it. My concern about this money resolution is the length of time that it has taken from Second Reading to come to this House. It appears that we are looking at a new procedure here, where the Executive are trying to block Bills that they do not like. Apparently, they have now agreed changes to the Bill, so they like it, so they are bringing forward the money resolution. I believe that that is an abuse of Parliament.
	There is another private Member’s Bill, whose promoter is my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), which has had its Second Reading, but it has had no money resolution, so it cannot get into Committee. Because of the way the Government gerrymandered the number of days for private Members’ Bills in this Session, there is only one more private Members’ Bill after this Friday. Unless the money resolution is agreed tonight, there will be no chance for this Bill to get into Committee.

David Nuttall: My hon. Friend says that there is no chance of the Bill getting through, but I know from a conversation I had earlier this evening with my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) that, if the Committee stage cannot be dealt with by 20 January 2012, the hope is that another day will be made available for private Members’ business.

Peter Bone: That is rather a surprise to me. I am now tempted to vote against the money resolution in order to allow another day for private Members’ Bills, but that would not coincide with my principles. What we must decide tonight is very simple. The money resolution is not about the money that would be spent, but about whether there should be an almost automatic passage through the House for a private Member’s Bill that has gone through Second Reading. What I am seeing tonight is an attempt to block that, and I do not like it. I do not like the way the Government have used that to put pressure to change the Bill. The House should support the money resolution, but I think that we should be wary of what the Government have done.

Tobias Ellwood: It will take me less time to make my brief points that it takes to boil an egg. The argument is simple. It is about how best to align our lives to maximise the benefits of daylight. For most of us our lives are not aligned in that way; we get up after dawn and go to bed much later than sunset.
	You spoke about studies, Madam Deputy Speaker. I conducted my own study when in opposition and recommend to the House my leaflet, “Time to Change the Clocks”, which goes through the benefits of daylight saving, particularly the studies that break down the benefits across the country. There would be a benefit in shifting the clocks. It would provide more time after work and school have finished. I recommend to the Minister and to the Bill Committee, if the Bill reaches Committee, that that aspect be brought into the study. For example, an additional 175 hours of daylight would be provided in Scotland if the clocks were moved—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. The hon. Gentleman is trying to be very ingenious in getting back to the main points of the Bill in a debate on a money resolution. He said that he would make his points briefly. We are talking about the money resolution and the study. Can we concentrate on that and not re-enact the debate on the Bill itself?

Tobias Ellwood: I give way to the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds).

Nigel Dodds: I was going to invite the hon. Gentleman to return to the money resolution and address the points that have been made by others on that, which I am sure he will now do.

Tobias Ellwood: I have now been advised to do so twice, so I will heed that advice. I am pleased to support the Bill. This is the furthest the proposal has ever got in Parliament since the original daylight saving experiment in the 1970s. I should add that that experiment was overturned not because the nation did not want it. The polls at the time were very much supportive of it. It was overturned because the farmers of the day—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat. I cannot understand what is complicated about this. We are dealing with a money resolution and I would appreciate it if Members stuck to that. Mr Dodds, I do not need any help and can manage it. Mr Ellwood, would you now refer to the money resolution and not to previous polls or debates unless they relate specifically to the money being spent?

Tobias Ellwood: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is one of the subjects that people get very passionate about, which is why there is a tendency to wander off the subject. I will complete my contribution by congratulating my hon. Friend the Minister on bringing this motion forward and hope that it will receive the support of the House today and the Bill will move on to Committee.

Philip Hollobone: I wish to speak to the money resolution because I am concerned that we are seeing an abuse of the parliamentary process. It has been the tradition for many years in this place for a money resolution, which can be tabled only by Her Majesty’s Treasury, to be tabled within a fortnight or three weeks of a Bill passing Second Reading, particularly a private Member’s Bill. What we are talking about is private Members’ legislation, which is extremely precious to the individual Members concerned and very precious to the House as a whole.
	The name of my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) luckily came up in the ballot, she duly tabled her Bill and there was a most interesting debate on Second Reading on 3 December 2010, when despite the opposition of Her Majesty’s Government the legislation was passed by 92 votes to 10.
	The context is that we are sitting through an extended Session of Parliament. Instead of there being an annual Session, we have a two-year Session, so 40 private Members’ Bills should have been tabled, but only 20 have been, because the Government have not allowed extra Friday sittings on which to table extra Bills. There has been only one ballot for private Members’ Bills, in which my hon. Friend was lucky to be successful, so private Members have had a reduced opportunity to table legislation.
	I contend that the Government have used the extra time in the Session to delay the passage of my hon. Friend’s Bill, because it is now almost a full year since that Second Reading debate. My hon. Friend the Minister’s answer to my earlier intervention was not good enough, because the Government should not use this delay in tabling the money resolution to sort out their attitude to any particular Bill; they should table the money resolution to go along with the will of the House as expressed on Second Reading, and then sort out their attitude to the Bill prior to Committee. Members may not appreciate that a private Member’s Bill cannot proceed to Committee unless the money resolution is passed, so the Government are using that device to delay the progress of the Bill.

David Nuttall: Is it not the case that, if this Session had been of normal length, the Bill would have already fallen?

Philip Hollobone: That is absolutely right, and my hon. Friend makes an extremely perceptive intervention. In fact, the Government have used a whole year of this two-year Session to delay the Bill, thereby denying the House the scrutiny it needs to improve legislation. I cannot understand why the Government are so frightened of scrutiny, because the better that Back Benchers do their job, the better the legislation, and the better the reputation of the Government of the day.

Angus MacNeil: Is the hon. Gentleman saying essentially that we should not be here tonight talking about the Bill, because it should have been dead and buried in the past year?

Philip Hollobone: That could have been an outcome, absolutely. We should not be here tonight, because we should have been here almost exactly a year ago. That is when the Government should have tabled this money resolution; then, the Bill would have proceeded into
	Committee; and on one of the subsequent private Members’ Fridays the hon. Gentleman and I could have debated its merits and demerits. The law would have been either passed or not by this stage, but Her Majesty’s Government have effectively taken a whole year out of the process, meaning that the legislation is right up against the wire.
	There is a private Members’ Friday this coming Friday, but then there is only one other such Friday, 20 January 2011. The passage of the money resolution tonight means that there will not be time for the Bill Committee to sit before this Friday, so if the Bill is to go through Committee the only remaining Friday on which it can return to the House is 20 January. On that day, it will need to complete its Report and Third Reading if it is to make any progress, meaning that its subsequent passage through the House of Lords will be squeezed between the end of January and the beginning of April. That is going to be a rushed process if the Bill is to succeed.
	My simple contention is this: whether someone is for or against the Bill, if the time and scope for the scrutiny of any legislation is reduced, it will probably not be as good as it otherwise might have been. There is absolutely no need for this process to have taken so long. I simply do not understand why it has taken Her Majesty’s Government almost 12 months to make up their mind—indeed, to change their mind—on the merits of this Bill.

Angus MacNeil: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Bill of the hon. Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) has, in effect, been destroyed because of the time that has been taken away from the consideration of it and the fact people will not have the opportunity to consider it? Is he also saying that there is a great danger the Bill will not become law and, as a result of the Government’s actions, the Bill has been utterly destroyed?

Philip Hollobone: I do not think the Bill has been destroyed because it still has a chance of passing through both Houses. The point I am trying to make is that if it does succeed in becoming an Act, it will only be by the skin of its teeth because there effectively is only one more sitting Friday for private Members’ Bills in this place.

Angus MacNeil: Therefore, if it is not utterly legally destroyed, it is morally destroyed.

Philip Hollobone: It has certainly not been the best use of parliamentary time in making sure that, as a piece of legislation, the Bill is as good as it could be. I am very worried that the Government are setting a precedent to abuse the private Members’ process because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) said, another Bill has passed its Second Reading in this place. The Local Government Ombudsman (Amendment) Bill was passed on a private Members’ sitting Friday on 10 June. The will of this House was that that Bill should have its Second Reading, but here we are five months later and the Government have not yet moved a money resolution for that Bill.

Ian Swales: The hon. Gentleman has spoken for eight minutes. Is he determined that the Minister will not be able to respond to his comments?

Philip Hollobone: No. I am about to resume my place because I want to hear the Minister’s response, and I particularly want to hear him address this point. Why
	are the Government using money resolutions to delay the passage of Bills when they should be allowing the House to pass money resolutions at an early stage? The Government can then come back in Committee to debate the merits and demerits of the Bill. Would that not be a far better way for legislation to proceed in this place, rather than the abuse of the system that we are witnessing?

David Nuttall: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) on her perseverance and determination in pursuing this matter over the past 12 months—and, indeed, during the period before she was drawn fourth in the ballot.
	I do not want to detain the House long. I am conscious that there is not a great deal of time left and that we all want to hear from the Minister. Although I voted against curtailing the Second Reading debate—and I remind the House that it was curtailed—I did vote for the Bill to proceed on Second Reading. I, along with many others—indeed, millions of people outside the House—have been waiting for the money resolution finally to move its way up the Order Paper to be debated.
	On the issue of money, may I ask the Minister to explain in his winding up whether the figure of £750,000 is an estimate? If so, what is that estimate based on? What analysis has been made of the cost of the trial that was held back in the 1970s, and how that has been used to inform the present-day estimate? In addition, has any assessment has been made of whether any work that was done at that time is still of value today? I reiterate the points made by the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) on how the cost of the trial is to be split between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
	Finally, in the seconds remaining, I point out that, with inflation running at 5% and an estimated cost of £750,000, the delay has already cost £37,500. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to those questions.

Mark Prisk: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker. On the money, £750,000 is the estimate that I made clear in my opening remarks, and that is the figure that relates to the benefit analysis with this motion. I believe that the motion should be supported by the House.
	Question put and agreed to.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith ( Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Representation of the People

That the draft Parliamentary Constituencies and Assembly Electoral Regions (Wales) (Amendment) Order 2011, which was laid before this House on 24 October, be approved.—(Stephen Crabb.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order  No.  118(6)),

Energy

That the draft Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme Regulations 2011, which were laid before this House on 24 October, be approved. —(Stephen Crabb.)
	Question agreed to.

European Union Documents

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

Schengen Governance

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 14357/11, a Commission Communication: Schengen governance—strengthening the area without internal border control, No. 14359/11, a Draft Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No. 562/2006 in order to provide for common rules on the temporary reintroduction of border control at internal borders in exceptional circumstances, No. 16664/10, a Draft Regulation on the establishment of an evaluation mechanism to verify the application of the Schengen acquis, No. 14358/11, an amended proposal for a Regulation on the establishment of an evaluation and monitoring mechanism to verify the application of the Schengen acquis, and No. 14142/10, a Draft Council Decision on the full application of the provisions of the Schengen acquis in the Republics of Bulgaria and Romania; and supports the Government’s approach for stronger governance of the Schengen area whilst safeguarding the Member States’ primary responsibility in matters of internal security, securing an effective evaluation and monitoring mechanism which includes the UK in respect of Schengen provisions in which the UK takes part, and supporting the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the Schengen area as they have met the criteria and standards required of them under the terms of their Acts of Accession.—(Stephen Crabb.)
	The Deputy Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until tomorrow (Standing Order No. 41A).

Sittings of the House (29 November)

Ordered,
	That on Tuesday 29 November the House shall meet at 11.30 am and references to specific times in the Standing Orders of this House shall apply as if that day were a Wednesday.—(Stephen Crabb.)

PETITION
	 — 
	Boundary Changes (Edmonton)

Andrew Love: I am pleased to present—[ Interruption. ]

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Perhaps, Mr Love, you could resume your seat so that we can wait until Members have left the Chamber quietly.

Andrew Love: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	I am pleased to present this petition on the new boundaries for the Edmonton constituency. My constituents are outraged that the boundary commissioners have ganged up on Edmonton, proposing changes that try to cross the natural barrier of the River Lee, which is over 1 mile wide in parts and separates the two distinct parts of the new constituency. There are no direct transport links across the new constituency, and this undermines existing community ties. My constituents are petitioning the House to make time for a debate on the proposed changes to the boundaries of the constituency of Edmonton.
	Following is the full text of the petition:
	[ The Petition of residents of Edmonton and others,
	Declares that the Petitioners are opposed to the proposed boundary changes put forward by the Boundary Commission for England in relation to the constituency of Edmonton, as the Petitioners believe that the proposed changes will undermine existing community ties and declares that the Petitioners believe that the integrity of Edmonton should be maintained through links with other adjacent communities.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to make time for a debate on the proposed changes by the Boundary Commission for England to the constituency of Edmonton.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
	[P000984]

IMMIGRATION (STRANRAER/CAIRNRYAN)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Michael Fabricant.)

Russell Brown: I am pleased that I have managed to secure this debate this evening. That said, I am disappointed that it has needs this action to try to secure answers from the Minister. That, along with a number of freedom of information requests, has meant I have had to bring my concerns to the Floor of the House.
	My concerns are about one of the most irresponsible cuts this Government have imposed—the withdrawal of UK Border Agency funding from the police ports unit protecting the Galloway ports in my constituency. At the end of this week, I will be attending the official opening of Stena Line’s new terminal building on Loch Ryan. This has replaced its old base in the heart of Stranraer, where ferries have crossed the Irish sea for 150 years. There is also a ferry port operated by P&O just a few miles further round the loch, in the village of Cairnryan.
	The Galloway ports are the second busiest ports in the UK, and they have more immigration issues than anywhere else in Scotland. Even though they are entry points to the UK mainland, they are internal ports and a well-known route for illegal immigrants seeking to gain access, and for organised criminals to smuggle contraband goods or illegal drugs. It is well recognised that those last issues were a regular source of funding for terrorist activity in the past.
	The chief constable of Dumfries and Galloway constabulary has described the ports as a
	“nexus point for illegal immigration”.

Thomas Docherty: My hon. Friend has been a champion for Dumfries and Galloway for the 13 or 14 years that he has been a Member. I am disappointed that not a single Scottish National party Member has bothered to come to support his case tonight. He has mentioned the chief constable. Will he say whether there have been any further cuts recently to the number of police officers in the region, from which the ports might have suffered?

Russell Brown: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I will come on to that point.
	The chief constable’s comments did not stop the Government deciding last summer completely to withdraw the UKBA funding that paid for three officers in Dumfries and Galloway police’s ports unit. That funding had been put in place in 2006. A former Home Office Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), visited the Stena facility with me early last year and agreed that we needed to increase the resources to ensure security. She was astonished by what she witnessed.
	Just a few weeks after the general election, the position was turned on its head and the Government announced the complete withdrawal of the UKBA funding. Clearly what had changed was that the Government had embarked upon deep cuts, whatever the price. That was confirmed by the UKBA’s regional director for Scotland and Northern
	Ireland, Phil Taylor, who admitted in a letter to the Scottish Government’s Justice Secretary that the cuts at the Galloway ports were due to the
	“government’s requirement to bear down on the cost of the public sector”.
	It is pertinent to note that the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch was based on witnessing at first hand the difficulties at the ports. The decision to terminate the UKBA funding at the ports was decided without anyone having the decency to visit the facility to witness how the system operated. In fact, no Minister, not even the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland who represents part of the region—I appreciate the fact that he has turned up this evening—has visited the Galloway ports, despite imposing major cuts on them.
	I come now to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty). It is worth mentioning the role of the SNP Scottish Government in this. Although they have been quick to join the chorus of criticism of the UK Government’s cuts, they themselves cut the equivalent of 14.5 officers from the ports unit over the previous couple of years. The crocodile tears from the Scottish Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, who visited the ports to discuss security issues yesterday, are shameful in the extreme. The truth is that the Galloway ports have suffered from a double whammy of cuts, first from the SNP Government in Edinburgh and then from the Conservative-led coalition Government.
	Today I call on the UK Government to consider either reinstating the UKBA financial support to the Dumfries and Galloway ports unit or providing UKBA staff at the ports. The case is overwhelming and I want to highlight three areas. First, the Government must take heed of their own national security strategy, which identified a
	“significant increase in the levels of terrorism relating to Northern Ireland”
	as a tier 1, or priority, risk to the country. It makes no sense to recognise an increased threat and then to essentially downgrade the security at the route on to the mainland through the Galloway ports.
	Secondly, Dumfries and Galloway constabulary has revealed that the scale of the illegal immigration is worse than had been measured previously. Indeed, a UKBA study earlier this year found that the number of illegal immigrants detected at the ports had rocketed by 65% since the previous year. The Government clearly decided to cut the resource based on an estimation of the number of illegal immigrants passing through the ports. Surely the Minister must concede that if the facts change, so must the conclusions. The most recent figures show that the number of immigration cases between 1 September and 10 November increased by 20% compared to the same period last year, and that whereas in the past one in every six people who were stopped were non-EU citizens, that has now increased to one in five.
	Thirdly, the cut at the Galloway ports was made with the assurance that greater effort would be put in at the Northern Ireland end. That approach has so far failed. In September, Dumfries and Galloway police told me that
	“a lack of checks/coverage at the Northern Ireland side…has led to more offenders getting through the Northern Ireland ports undetected.”
	It is clear that the UKBA failed properly to plan how the ports would cope with the withdrawal of the funding support. New procedures came into place only in September this year, 10 months after the cuts. That should have been done before any decision was taken but it was not, because the cuts were rushed through in a matter of weeks. The consequence is that the Government not only reduced security at the ports but left us exposed for almost a year as they decided how to try to compensate for that.

David Hamilton: I thank my hon. Friend for introducing this debate, especially following last week’s debate on immigration. Is it not the case that the Government did not understand, and still do not understand, the importance of people coming into the UK from Ireland, and how easy it is to do that? Will that situation not be exacerbated at the new terminal, which is expected to take in far more people through that same gateway? Unless the number of staff there is increased, there will be a real problem in future.

Russell Brown: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. As I said earlier, the previous Immigration Minister came to see the site and was quite shocked by what she witnessed. My plea all along has been that before the Government withdraw the funding, somebody should come to have a look. According to Stena’s figures, we are expecting a potential 50% increase in traffic. Thankfully, the Scottish Government Justice Minister has decided that he will look favourably on another four officers, but that will simply take us back to a situation that the chief constable sees as having been sustainable; it does not take account of the additional traffic that there will be.

Nigel Dodds: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. As well as the issue of terrorism, does he accept that there is great concern in Northern Ireland about the fact that people can so easily enter the Northern Ireland part of the United Kingdom across the border with no real check, as a result not only of cuts but of a deliberate policy?

Russell Brown: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention and his concern. This is a serious issue, and I hope that even if the Minister cannot give us answers this evening, he will give the matter serious consideration and take the time to come to have a look at what we are experiencing.
	One of the most damning aspects to emerge from the situation is the revelation that no one has any idea how many illegal immigrants simply disappear after being stopped at the ports. The police have no authority to seize and arrest any of them. Two weeks ago the Home Secretary was under fire for immigration failings over the summer. The scandal is that she has known for more than a year that there is no way to keep track of illegal immigrants entering through the Galloway ports, and she has not done a thing about it.
	Upon detecting illegal immigrants at the ports, Dumfries and Galloway police issue them with an instruction and an appointment to appear at a UKBA office in Glasgow or Manchester. They then release the offenders, in the hope they will keep their promise. That is shockingly lax. If someone has entered the country illegally, are they really going to hand themselves in the next morning?

Jim Shannon: I, too, congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this matter to the Chamber tonight. Obviously Stranraer and Cairnryan are critical, but there also has to be a domino effect. Perhaps it is time to go back to where people come in. Does he feel that the Minister should consider how he can curtail immigration from the Republic through to Northern Ireland and into Scotland?

Russell Brown: I thank the hon. Gentleman. There is no doubt that there appears to be a weak link, because people can get easy access to Northern Ireland. People can get on a bus in Belfast, and the next stop could well be Birmingham or London. It is as simple as that. The Immigration Minister told me in correspondence that it would be too expensive to find out how many illegal immigrants had absconded on their way to a UKBA office. How on earth can the Government make those cuts and then not monitor the effectiveness of the processes in place?
	Dumfries and Galloway police have told me of an alarming case of two illegal immigrants. They were detained in Belfast overnight and told to report to the UKBA the following morning, but instead were detected disembarking at Stranraer after crossing on the ferry. Despite flouting the rules once, the only course of action available to the local police was to release them with instructions to attend the UKBA office in Glasgow. As the police said:
	“Do we honestly think, given this course of conduct, that they would have any intention of attending?”
	The Minister needs to tell us why he is not doing anything to close this massive loophole in our border security. The Government have turned a blind eye throughout to worries about security at the ports. The Prime Minister told me during Prime Minister’s questions on 24 November last year that he would
	“look very carefully…to make sure that the system is working.”—[Official Report, 24 November 2010; Vol. 519, c. 260.]
	Perhaps the Minister will clarify whether the Prime Minister followed that up, or whether, as I suspect, they were nothing more than empty words.
	In a letter to me dated 4 January this year, the Immigration Minister promised personally to review the security arrangements at the end of February. Perhaps he could tell me today what he found, because I can find no record of his review. The only study of the arrangements since the Government’s cut was carried out by the UKBA and published in August this year. The scope was extremely narrow, and Dumfries and Galloway Police have confirmed that there was no contact from any Government Minister. Both the Prime Minister and Immigration Minister promised me they would look at this issue personally. To the best of my knowledge, neither has done so. I hope the Minister will today commit to a full independent review of the arrangements in place at the Galloway ports.
	The Government’s first duty is to the safety and security of citizens. The removal of financial support for ports police from Galloway ports is putting that at risk simply to save money. The Minister has serious questions to answer today. Will he tell us why he ignored the concerns of Dumfries and Galloway police and pressed ahead with that irresponsible cut? Is he still unable to tell the House how many illegal immigrants disappeared following release after detection at the Galloway ports?
	Given that we are just scratching the surface of the illegal immigration problems at the ports, will the Government concede that the case for the reversal of the cut in UKBA funding is now overwhelming? I look forward to hearing what he has to say.

Damian Green: I congratulate the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown) on securing this debate. I know how strongly he feels and I will deal with the specific matter of the common travel area and Ireland in a minute. However, I must first tell him that it is slightly bizarre for him to say that he was expecting a review, that a review was done by UKBA, and that that somehow had nothing to do with me. I am the Minister responsible for UKBA, so if it does a review, it has something to do with me. That is how these things are done.

Russell Brown: Will the Minister give way?

Damian Green: I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman overran his time slightly, so I will not be able to take interventions from him—he has had a good go.
	As I am sure the hon. Gentleman recognises, and as I need to make explicitly clear, Stranraer and Cairnryan are domestic ports. Those western Scottish sea ports are not designated ports within the meaning of immigration legislation. They are not international ports of entry such as Dover. The ferry routes between Northern Ireland and Scotland are domestic UK services. Legally and in immigration control terms, they are no different from ferry services between the Scottish mainland and the western isles or between Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. There are no international passenger services between Stranraer or Cairnryan and any foreign country. We must be clear that we are talking about people moving within the UK; we are not talking about people coming into the UK.
	I am sure that, beneath the rhetoric, the hon. Gentleman recognises that it would be wholly inappropriate to introduce passport controls at domestic UK ports. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. Journeys within the United Kingdom are not subject to border controls, and nor should they be. Our intelligence shows that the route is subject to abuse. The UKBA knows that some come here with the intention of flouting the immigration laws, and that those here illegally deliberately move around the UK to avoid detection. That is why we work closely to clamp down on those who come here and abuse the system.
	The UKBA works closely with the police in Dumfries and Galloway, and I welcome that close working relationship. The agency is also working closely with the Irish Garda to tackle people who start in the Republic of Ireland and then try to enter Northern Ireland illegally. Relations with the Republic of Ireland are strong. Together we are working to secure and strengthen the whole of the common travel area and to narrow the opportunities to exploit it, as well as reinforcing the excellent co-operation that already exists between the UKBA and the Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service in relation to the protection of the common travel area. Of
	course, I recognise the importance of that, and we are working hard to ensure that the CTA becomes a stronger border area as a whole.
	I recognise that we are in difficult economic times and that changes to the structure of the UKBA may have been unwelcome to the hon. Gentleman. His concerns about last year’s decision to remove UKBA police funding to Stranraer and Cairnryan have been noted—he has made them clear in the intervening months—and we appreciate the impact that it has had on the Dumfries and Galloway constabulary. As he made clear, however, that came with a much greater reduction in funding from the Scottish Government of the force’s counter-terrorism work.
	Dumfries and Galloway is Scotland’s smallest police force. I know that Chief Constable Pat Shearer has made his concerns public, as the hon. Gentleman said. Pat Shearer said last September that cuts in staff numbers meant that the force was going
	“closer and closer to the bone”,
	and he believed that there was a limit to how far cuts to the constabulary could go without adversely affecting police performance.
	As we all know, policing in Scotland and its funding are devolved matters. The police have a duty to uphold and enforce the law and maintain the peace in Scotland. Dumfries and Galloway constabulary, like other forces across the UK, carries out a range of work, and it is its decision—the chief constable’s decision—how its prioritises and manages that work. The UKBA officials work with it to tackle irregular migration. Like the Dumfries and Galloway constabulary, the UKBA must spend public money carefully. The agency therefore took the decision to realign its deployment of seconded police. That decision affected seconded officers throughout the UK.
	It was reasonable for the hon. Gentleman to ask what changed. When the UKBA began funding police officers in Stranraer, it had a limited presence in Northern Ireland. At that time, officers had to be deployed from other areas to conduct operations in Northern Ireland. In July 2009, the agency formed a new local immigration team in Belfast. From its offices in Drumkeen house, the UKBA now conducts a wide range of immigration services. A key part of that is tackling immigration crime. The UKBA therefore has more officers than ever before on the ground in Northern Ireland tackling irregular migrants.
	The UKBA operates right across the United Kingdom, so it is right that we consider where best across the UK to place our resources to tackle illegal immigration. Tackling abuse of the immigration system is fundamental to the work of the UKBA, and our enforcement work produces real results. This year, a targeted summer campaign involved more than 600 operations across the country resulting in 557 arrests. Some 65 prosecutions have been initiated so far, and there have been 22 successful prosecutions.
	I shall touch on specific examples of immigration enforcement work at the western Scotland and Northern Ireland ports. In September, an immigration fraudster was jailed for 18 months after being caught with a bundle of fake identities. Fayyaz Ahmed was arrested at Belfast docks in February while trying to get on the Belfast-to-Stranraer ferry. He was found to have three computer memory sticks and two mobile phones containing
	more than 700 false and fraudulently altered identity documents. His case, which involved a sophisticated criminal operation, underlines what we all know: that some migrants will seek to abuse our immigration controls. It also highlights the importance of the work that our team on the ground in Northern Ireland does.
	Intelligence shows that the majority of illegal migrant traffic comes from the Republic of Ireland through Northern Ireland, and then on to Scotland. It therefore makes sense to transfer the responsibility for identifying those illegal migrants to the border agency’s local immigration team in Northern Ireland, where UK Border Agency staff replicate the work already done at the Northern Irish airports. The agency has more substantial resources on site in Northern Ireland, which is more conveniently located to service the ports and enable the agency to be more operationally effective. The UK Border Agency’s immigration officers in Northern Ireland therefore check the status of passengers arriving from or leaving for Great Britain, targeting routes shown to be most at risk.
	In the medium term, UKBA resources will shoulder more of the work of dealing with immigration offenders using that route, which will ease the pressure on Dumfries and Galloway police. For now, early results suggest that, with appropriate levels of co-operation, smart deployments and an increased ratio of detections by the UKBA in Northern Ireland, further improvements can be made in the detection rates of immigration offenders using the Galloway ports as a transit route between Northern Ireland and Scotland. In the long run, the new arrangements, with more effective controls on those routes, will lead to an overall reduction in immigration arrest rates and minimise the burden on Dumfries and Galloway constabulary. An early review of UKBA operations found that an increasing number of immigration offenders are being detected in Northern Ireland, which happens before they can travel to Scotland by ferry or the rest of the UK by air.

Russell Brown: I thank the Minister for giving way, and I wholly agree with him—I have here the UKBA report on the common travel area. Although more effort is being made in Northern Ireland—rightly so, because a commitment was given on that—and although more people are being detected, the reality is that more people are still coming on to the mainland through the Galloway ports. I think I mentioned this earlier, but we have all underestimated how serious the problem is; I hold my hand up to that as well. More needs to be done.

Damian Green: Of course, more always needs to be done, on every route. However, what I hope I am explaining to the House and the hon. Gentleman is what is being done and why I believe that the changes being made—which focus the operation more in Northern Ireland, which is the source of the problem in his constituency—are a more effective long-term way of tackling illegal immigration and, as a beneficial side effect, reducing the stress on the Dumfries and Galloway police.

Nigel Dodds: I am grateful for what the Minister has said about what is being done in Northern Ireland, and he is absolutely right. However, he also said that the source of the problem was Northern Ireland, but is not
	the real problem people coming in from the Irish Republic? There are checks at the border at the ports and the airports, but what about the illegal immigration into Northern Ireland? What is being done to tackle that problem?

Damian Green: The right hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly reasonable point. I am in close negotiations with my Irish counterpart to ensure that the common travel area becomes more effective, as I have explained. We need to help the Irish Government to strengthen their border, because, as we are in a common travel area, to some extent their border is obviously our border. The closer we can co-operate and the stronger we can make that border, the better it will be.
	Let me demonstrate what has happened. If we look at UKBA work, as seen in the review into working arrangements, we find that impressive results have been produced both in Scotland and Northern Ireland. In just four months—January to April—175 immigration offenders were detected at Northern Irish sea and airports and at west of Scotland sea ports. That is a 200% increase on the same period in 2010, which suggests we are doing much better at getting to the root of the problem.
	We have produced and agreed a 10-point plan between the Border Agency and the Dumfries and Galloway constabulary to improve co-ordination and liaison. The plan will cover a wide range of aspects, including the systematic sharing of intelligence, joint tasking and co-ordination of deployments, which optimises coverage at the highest-risk times at Northern Ireland sea ports and reduces the number of immigration offenders who need to be processed by the police in Scotland. Again, that is a double benefit. There are now also monthly operational and quarterly strategic meetings to share results, learn from experiences, identify and introduce best practice, and review the progress of current arrangements. The joint objective over the next six months is to introduce all these measures fully and to refine them, to deliver the majority of detections and detentions in Northern Ireland and to reduce Dumfries and Galloway constabulary time and the work needed to deal with immigration suspects and offenders encountered at the Scottish sea ports.
	This debate is particularly timely, as I know that Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Government Cabinet Secretary for Justice chaired a meeting yesterday at the new port of Loch Ryan where he met David Ford, the Northern Ireland Assembly Minister of Justice, as well as representatives of both Scottish and Northern Irish police forces and the regional operation leads from the UKBA. I understand that it was a very constructive meeting, and I think it is important to recognise that the working relationship at the operational level among the Border Agency, the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Dumfries and Galloway constabulary goes a long way to make our ports an unwelcoming place for criminals.
	Of course, all police forces come across illegal immigrants—
	House adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 9(7)).